Last modified on 4 January 2012, at 16:06

User:Kalki/2011 Contentions

Monad.svg
Sahasrara.svg
"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."
Foundational Principles against overly-controlling forces developing on the wikis.
Even if you have read them before, PLEASE EXAMINE ANEW: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, and the other links available there, including the links delineating much which Wikipedia was NOT. These were some of the earliest directives established by the founding workers on the Wikimedia projects.

This is primarilly a chronological presentation of contentions on various pages which occured in 2011.

Talk:Julian Assange 2011·01·09Edit

Chronological order and cite formattingEdit

Please keep quotes in chronological order. Please do not remove cite formatting. -- Cirt (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It might be more apt to call this reformatting rather than removal, as I would not consider the result unformatted. It would be more conducive to arriving at a consensus if, rather than implicitly denying the validity or existence of the revised format, one were to offer reasons for preferring one format over the other. ~ Ningauble 22:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The cite formatting you are promotting is an option here — NOT a mandate, as far as I am aware, and your recent edits have DESTROYED chronological arrangements and removed legitimate quotes. I believe that you are also inclined to use extensive footnote formatting, which has long been deprecated here, and issue your comments as if they were imperatives others should obey witihout question — and you have abundantly made clear your vindictive and punitive attitude towards anyone who dares to dissent to your demands and dispositions, as your comments, lacking in merit or validity haver resulted in me being blocked here for an entirely unwarranted period of time — as well as the Wikipedia, and at Wikimedia commons, where I remain unable to edit, as I have not, as yet had time or sufficient inclination to challenge the blocks you initiated against me there. Your presumptively dictatorial and imperious manner is something I find quite disgusting, and I make no effort to hide that fact. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 00:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Kalki (talk · contributions) has removed the cite templates, and removed the chronological order formatting, again, without waiting for discussion. Reported this to WQ:AN, at Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard#Disruption_by_User:Kalki_at_page_Julian_Assange. -- Cirt (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
"Cite templates" are a MINOR formatting issue — and I am attempting to preserve added material, and maintain chronological order — which is MUCH easier to do with straightforward WYSIWYG formatting of citations that can proceed as they have for YEARS here, rather than using bulked up citation templates, which are a relatively recent innovation which some prefer, but I make no pretense of believeing to be preferable, and actually believe are detrimental in many ways. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 01:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The entire article used citation templates as the main format for the quotes cited. Kalki chose to undo this format for the page, disrupting the stability of the page on a living person - with no prior discussion - and then decided to engage in further disruption by reverting and again removing the prior format style of the previously stable page. -- Cirt (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
"Kalki chose to undo this format for the page, disrupting the stability of the page on a living person" — This is a bunch of profoundly foul HOGWASH. The formatting of citations is certainly NOT prescribed in the manner Cirt is implying it is or should be, and revising the citation format is NOT some horrendous offense to "the stability of the page on a living person" as Cirts fearmongering attempt at intimidation pretends it is. My supposed "disruptions" to this project in attempting to do constructive edits here are but minor things compared to the major disruptions Cirt has caused with his rather extensive attempts at character assassination and diminishing my reputation and abilities to edit on Wikimedia projects. I am not addressing all the abuses I consider Cirt to have engaged in, but the time will come when I might well do so — I have far more interesting matters to attend to now. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 02:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
In this edit, which Cirt characterizes as "disruptive" and reverted, I had added Assange's Date of Birth, arranged the quotations ABOUT Assange BY AUTHOR, which anyone who has spent more than rudimentary time at Wikiquote knows is a STANDARD arrangement for such sections, and removed a citation formatting that is designed for long lists of footnote citations which I consider ridiculously inappropriate for interlinear citations, and contemptible to insist upon as if it were mandated here. I added a quotation by Newsweek journalist Ben Adler, in which he quoted entirely relevant comments about Assange by Sam Freedman and Dan Abrams — I believe these clearly are notable and appropriate comments to include here. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 04:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Can you please interact on talk pages without using bold, and CAPS formatting? -- Cirt (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Of course I can, but I am no more inclined to make any major effort to suppress that aspect of my inclinations than you are to suppress yours of regularly adopting an imperious tone that seems to imply or assert that you know what is best for everyone else to do, and anything against your preferences and styles of behavior should be automatically depricated or even forbidden. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 16:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Just that the use of bold and CAPS makes it most difficult to comfortably parse what is attempted to be communicated. -- Cirt (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding "cite formatting", the issue raised here (leaving chronological ordering to a separate thread above, and disregarding personal remarks and other digressions) is whether or not to use citation templates. No policy or guideline mandates or deprecates use of these templates, and it has long been a matter of editor preference. Few regular contributors use them, but visiting Wikipedians often do. Some of the considerations are:
  1. Templates can lead to a degree of consistency in the style of the resulting text. However, due to the variety of templates and their multiple options and parameters, the potential for uniformity is largely unrealized in practice.
  2. The templates were originally designed for formatting footnotes at Wikipedia. I think it debatable whether the same formats are desirable for Wikiquote's style of interlinear citation. Some of the templates (not used in this case) are modeled on academic styles that were designed to facilitate indexing a separate bibliography. I really do not like seeing the "First, Last" naming convention here, and am not aware of any major compendia of quotations that use it.
  3. Proper use of the templates is relatively obscure for people who do not use them regularly. I am sure most random visitors from the general public, upon attempting to edit a page with templatized citations, find the wikitext unreadable, to the detriment of the principle that "anyone can edit."
  4. It can be convenient to copy and paste a citation from another wiki, template included, but this can lure one into neglecting to customize the citation for the context, as by providing local wikilinks or omitting information that is redundant in the enclosing page or section.
On balance, I do not favor using these templates, but I would not go out of my way to reformat citations that use them. When I do have occasion to edit such citations, e.g. to provide missing information or to move footnotes inline, I usually un-templatize them in passing. It hardly matters enough to make an edit-war, so I imagine the actual reason for this dispute lies elsewhere than the point being disputed, and I apologize if this lengthy post has the effect of contributing to making a mountain out of this molehill. ~ Ningauble 22:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you much for your analysis and commentary. I hesitate to edit this at this time, but I would like to at least restore the edit I had initially made, which I believe conforms to such recommendations, and perhaps restore the other quote added by someone else, if there are no significant objections to it. Both the quote I added and that added by someone else seem to me relevant to the page, and the one I had added incorporates commentary by 3 notable journalists on Assange. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 04:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose removing cite templates. Ningauble, the entire page already uses cite templates as the standardized format. I do not object to new quotes being added with a different cite format, with the option to format them later, but going out of one's way to remove the standardization and uniformity for all the citations - is unnecessary and a threat to page stability. -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
That applying formatting which has been the standard on this wikiproject for YEARS is "going out of one's way to remove the standardization and uniformity for all the citations - is unnecessary and a threat to page stability" — is quite frankly a crock of crap. As a wiki we SHOULD permit and encourage innovations and changes — but when the longstanding consensus of what works best on the project as a whole is clearly undermined, editors should be free to remove rather pointless and detrimental innovations without seeking permission from anyone — they should simply be free to do that, and people who seek to impose NEW rules or new standards should be required to post convincing and sufficiently persuasive arguments to sway the community as a whole to their position — not simply expect others to bow down to what they believe would be the most convenient or appealing style for they themselves to maintain or supprort. I am sure Cirt has MUCH to contribute to the project, but laying down new laws or standards to be accepted by others without open disputes and adoption for clear reasons by the whole community is NOT one of them. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 17:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The cite templates exist. They are used on multiple pages. There is no "standard" or policy dictating that they must not be used and that they must be disruptively replaced on pages of living people. -- Cirt (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Implying that any particular format is something which it would be innately "disruptive" to replace with a more generally used norm, and repeatedly tying this implication to some false associations that doing so might violate some sort of ethical policies because it is on some "page of living people" is a rather shallow and fetid position. Of course these templates exist, and many people find it convenient to use them, and I don't regularly object to them being used. NOT being an asinine absolutist about anything, I am NOT suggesting that they be scrapped entirely, or forbidden in any way and never have done so, but hold that they should also not be treated as themselves sacred or sacrosanct in any way. I have in fact regularly removed such formatting, despite it being inconvenient for me to do so, as I belleve the long standing form is generally far more convenient, practical and straightforward for most people not overly addicted to such specific templates. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 18:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Pages on living people should be treated with more care than other pages, and disruption on such pages should be avoided. I thank you for refraining at present from said behavior, and engaging in discussion at the talk page. I echo the comments of Ningauble above, that cite templates foster both consistency in formatting across pages, and convenience in importing material from other pages. -- Cirt (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
You take my comments out of context: I said that their potential for uniformity is not realized in practice, and that their convenience leads to sloppiness. ~ Ningauble 23:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I too agree with the assertions that "cite templates foster both consistency in formatting across pages, and convenience in importing material from other pages" and thus I Do NOT object to their being used — but the format that might be convenient for other people on other projects in other uses is NOT the optimal format to use here, and should NOT be treated as a holy ideal or sacred idol that other users should be compelled to bow down to, or prevented from altering; especially not with specious arguments that "Pages on living people should be treated with more care than other pages" — such arguments apply properly to the CONTENT of such pages — and certainly NOT to the relatively trivial and largely unrelated matters of the formatting in which it might be presented. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 18:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Kalki that citation format has nothing to do with the respect and diligence due to living people, unless it is so flowery as to constitute hagiography or so ugly as to be disparaging. ~ Ningauble 20:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding ease of use, I cannot agree with the comment in this edit (which didn't work until the template was revised somewhat) that "cite templates make this needlessly easy to do." I think it is self-evident which of the following snippets of wikimarkup is easier (differences shown in bold):
  • last=Ellsberg|first=Daniel|authorlink=Daniel Ellsberg|
  • [[Daniel Ellsberg]],
The first is nearly three times longer, and will break if parameter names and punctuation are not exactly right. ~ Ningauble 20:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Primary source additionsEdit

[1] = please, avoid use of primary sources for additions, as in this example. Let us rely mostly on secondary sources. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

ONCE AGAIN, Cirt is behaving AS IF his preferences were MANDATES here, which, so far as I am aware, they are NOT. Cirt is an admin, and as far as I can be has regularly used his status here to IMPOSE his will and preferences, and in the case of myself to punitively apply his supposed authority in removing my appropriate rights, not only here, but at other wikimedia projects. As far as I am aware, there has been NO mandating of such a policy as Cirt is pretending should be submitted to as if it were. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 01:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Please engage in discussion about the subject of this thread, avoiding primary sources for selecting quotes on a page about a living person. -- Cirt (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I was engaged in discussion which was the subject of this thread, and your behavior and false presumptions and assertions here and elsewhere, which I believe are very relevant to discussion of this incident, and many others. The person who added that quote was quoting PUBLICLY available information, originally posted at the subject of the article's public blog, and now posted at the Internet archive as significant enough to preserve there. I personally would not have actually added the material, but I can agree it is somewhat notable, and probably worthy of inclusion. I actually have very little interest in Mr. Assange, beyond some interest in defending his right to do as he will, and as he must with his levels of awareness, ignorance and confusion about many things, despite my actual belief in the wrongness and shallowness of much of his will and decision making processes. I am not seeking to be a denigrator or a defender of any or all of his actions, any more than I am seeking to be a defender or denigrator of all the possible motives of the poster of this particular quote. I do seek to defend this wiki from further imperious presumptions such as you have occasionally engaged in, where any edits you don't agree with are to be treated as if they were "disruptive", and in the case of my previous dispute with you, even subject to severe penalties of a vendetta of character assasination across multiple projects, where you accused me of being a "known abuser" of accounts, which I continue assert is NOT the case. Many accounts you could identify as uncontestedly presumed to be mine, here or elsewhere, have been blocked and all the contributions I had attempted to make on such user pages to enhance the general atmosphere of the project, in a generally jovial and hardly malicious way, and which I have begun to restore at my Restorations page, simply replaced with variations of some template such as {{sockpuppet|Kalki|confirmed}} . ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 03:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Please refrain from unnecessary verboseness, and overemphasized usage of bold text. It makes it much more difficult to successfully have a constructive and positive dialog. -- Cirt (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Of course accepting your characterization of any points or observations you don't wish to be made as "unnecessary verboseness" or somethng which "makes it much more difficult to successfully have a constructive and positive dialog" would permit you to entirely indulge in your inclination to presume that YOU should entirely set the agenda for others to discuss, and permit NO concerns or issues others might wish to raise in response to the complex interrelations of many events which I assert cannot actually be properly addressed in so constrained and limited a fashion as you would prefer to have them addressed by. I digress of course from issues of conformity to expectations which are rather alien to me and this project, and decline to defer to requests to ignore any issues of the ethical or practical considertations of being disposed to obey whatever some other individual or group of individuals would prefer, demand, or insist on as more convenient for them without clear and proper ethical justification of why what they find most convenient is something anyone else should accept as an ideal or mandate of their own. Simplistic minds and arguments often seek to keep things seeming so simple that they can imply or impel others to accept doctrines of "Might makes Right." I assert that what is right or best is NOT something always so easily or simply determined, and arguments on such matters, to be as fair as possible, should be as open as possible to all related issues and concerns — and NOT relegated to some pathetic paths onto some railroaded tunnel-vision track where the only outcome possible is one which can clearly be foreseen. If you choose to disrupt the wiki process by designating any other views, styles, agenda or concerns but your own narrowly and shallowly defined ones as things to be discarded and automatically classified as innately "disruptive", and can convince enough others to do the same, then you have successfully corrupted and crippled the wiki processes and initial aims of the Wikimedia projects far more than any vandals or trolls ever have. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 16:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • On the subject of primary and secondary sources, which I thought was the subject of this thread:
I agree that the quote to which Cirt objects looks like a very obscure bit of bloggery that we do not need to include; however, I do not agree with his prescription for emphasizing secondary sources. What is required is quotability. This has come up several times, so I have drafted an essay at Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources which may be of interest for clarifying the application of these terms to citing quotations. In particular:
  • A secondary source citation is but one of several indicators of quotability, and all secondary sources are not created equal.
  • We should not remove the entire "Quotes about" section of this article just because all of the citations are primary with respect to the quotes, nor give a free pass on quotability to every source that is secondary with respect to the subject.
I support the principle that quotability is particularly important when dealing with quotes by and about living people, especially when they are involved in controversy, but it is not as simple as discriminating between primary and secondary sources. ~ Ningauble 23:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard 2011·01·09Edit

Disruption by User:Kalki at page Julian AssangeEdit

Kalki is engaging in disruption at page Julian Assange, removing citation template formatting, and removing chronological order formatting of quotes, [2] and [3]. Would appreciate intervention from a previously uninvolved admin. Disruption by Kalki (talk · contributions) at this page on a living person is inappropriate and harmful to the prior stability of the page. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I assert that this is once again a SEVERE and unwarranted mischaracterization of an editing dispute engaged in by Cirt. His previous edit removed recently added material, and I am currently engaged in what I believe is a remedial editing of the page, attempting to arrange it chronologically with all the previously included quotes, despite the DIFFICULTIES of doing so with all the extraneous dates and rather irrelevant formatting used in the cite templates that some people seem to prefer. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 01:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  1. Kalki removed citation template formatting from the page.
  2. Kalki disrupted page and broke the chronological order of the quotes.
  3. Kalki again removed citation templates and disrupted chronological order of quotes on the page - without waiting for outcome of ongoing talk page discussion.

-- Cirt (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

In this edit, which Cirt characterizes above as "disruptive" I arranged the quotations ABOUT Assange BY AUTHOR, which anyone who has spent more than rudimentary time here knows is STANDARD arrangement for such sections, and removed a citation formatting that is designed for long lists of footnote citations which I consider ridiculously inappropriate for interlinear citations, and contemptible to insist upon as if it were mandated here. I added a quotation by Newsweek journalist Ben Adler, in which he quoted entirely relevant comments about Assange by Sam Freedman and Dan Abrams — these clearly are notable and appropriate comments to include here. In my earlier edit today — which I am NOT going to pursue, at present, as engaging in an edit dispute with someone so dictatorially presumptuous as Cirt it is NOT the most worthy use of my time right now, I was restoring that quote and another recent addition by someone else, which I believe is an ENTIRELY appropriate quote from Assange's public blog. I am going on to less contentious issues in what remains of my time for today, and hope to get constructive edits done elsewhere — many of the imperious disruptions of Cirt are something I have learned to avoid contending with, so long as I am able. As I stated elsewhere, his activities and accusations of me being an "abuser" of alternate accounts here, after my editing dispute with him some months ago resulted not only in my long and what I consider entirely inappropriate blocking here, but also resulted in my being blocked indefinitely at Wikimedia commons and Wikipedia — which rather irritates me, but currently is not a bothersome enough outrage for me to seek to remedy, as yet. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 01:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I want to clarify — there are NO accusations of my "abuses" of multiple accounts that I am aware of elsewhere — save for some years ago where I was FALSELY associated with some vandals, because of some incidental, invalid and incorrect assumptions. The only genuine accounts of my own which I am accused of abusing are those here, and these accusations of "abuse" here — primarily because I have so many of them, seem to be the rationale in accusing me of being an abusive "sockpuppeteer" elsewhere. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 01:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is not the way the bold-revert-discuss cycle is supposed to work. Since the two of you disagree, it is appropriate to invite community input on the editorial questions. The discussion has started on the wrong foot with an excess of mutual reverting, but I do not see that the wiki has been disrupted in a way that calls for administrative action at this time. "Disrupted the page" is an inappropriate way to characterize a bold edit. Disruption refers to interfering with the wiki process.

    I encourage both of you to confine your remarks to discussing the merits of the editorial choices, and to refrain from unnecessary and unproductive digressions. I am not going to comment on the editorial choices until tomorrow because I have other things to do now. ~ Ningauble 02:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

    • Agree with most of the comment by Ningauble (talk · contributions), however, Kalki should not revert and remove stable formatting on the page of a living person, while a dispute about that behavior is still ongoing at the talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Glenn Beck (2012·01·12)Edit

Media Matters Is Not A Reliable SourceEdit

It is a website run by idiots that are not intelligent enough to get real research jobs (e.g. government, university, financial services company) and have to rely on the charity of a senile billionaire. If their "research" abilities actually had any value they wouldn't be in a job where all they do is watch a news channel all day. I am going to remove all quotations that have mediamatters as their only source. Are there any objections?

—This unsigned comment is by 87.238.84.65 (talkcontribs) .
You apparently take your credentials as an anonymous IP as sufficient credentials for your own bias to cast aspersions on the bias of others. I believe that most regular editors here have persistently rejected calls from both right wing and and left wing extremists to automatically remove material linked to certain sites, simply because such sites are purportedly so biased as to have any material cited from automatically them dismissed as unreliable. If one can give evidence that some specific quotes from such sites are actually fallacious or clearly unreliable misquotations in anyway, one should do so, and reveal them as faulty or fallacious misquotations. Otherwise massive deletions of such quotes amounts to little more than presumptive censorship. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 22:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Spare me the pretentious language, bitch. I have a first class degree so you do not impress/intimidate me. You seem to have a lot of power round here (congratulations), so when I have time I will prove to you that every one of those quotations should be deleted.

Anyway you fucking dickhead, have you ever hard of a "character reference?" It's a thing used in court to evaluate a suspects testimony. If a suspect has a tendency to lie should we not require evidence from other sources before we accept their claims?

And, wtf are your credentials? You have nothing on me, fool.

—This unsigned comment is by 87.238.84.65 (talkcontribs) .
Your full credentials as a "Fair and Balanced" commentator are glaringly evident. I am not asserting that I am here to judge you — I am here to prevent what false, foul, and presumptuous judgments I can — which often has made me very unpopular with many of those most eager to judge and condemn others — "right", "left" and every which way but loose. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 23:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous assertions (2011·02·17)Edit

Originally at IP User talk:62.171.198.11

The ridiculous comments "I am God. … I Rule Wikiquotes. Welcome to my world ;)" which were posted from this IP have been removed from the God article. Currently the only people who are allowed to behave as if they were God here, and regularly pretend it is their right absolutely rule over others at Wikiquote as if they were, are a few arrogant and presumptive admins and checkusers who are ready to ignore many actual policies and facts in promotion of the interpretations or assumptions about a few which they favor and find convenient and useful, and are wont to insist or imply others should abjectly agree with, or suffer severely for doing otherwise. Even they are not so extremely witless as to actually claim they are God, or that it is entirely their world, as many dimwitted vandals are inclined to do.

I am quite sure that there is no one who is entirely witless, not even those dimwitted fascists and bullies of the world who must most chafe at the brilliantly liberating wit and will of others — though many might wish to presume others entirely witless or unworthy of any respect, so that they might persist in various forms of major or minor evils which satisfy their personal or partisan inclinations. I persist in promoting what I believe is the good of this project and others with such wit and will as can be maintained among many who are deficient in will to honor either good humour, good wit, or good will. Unfortunately deliberate vandals are not the most dangerous or damaging of foes one must face in such efforts. One does grow weary of many such confrontations with injustices though, and sometimes it is appropriate to either vent one's frustrations honestly, or honestly explode — amidst many who are quite complacent with all manner of foul dishonesties, and hypocrisies.

Previously, I would probably have already done a temporarily block of this account, and many others in recent months, and have been prepared for longer term blockage of them, if such vandalism were persisted in — but people caught up in various forms of short-sighted suspicions and complex forms of hypocrisy were responsible for the removal of such abilities from the tools available to me here. Such facts have reduced my inclination to monitor things here so regularly as I previously did, but I still seem to have a far more regular and active presence here than many of those who have presumed to judge me as someone unworthy of respect or trust — and have seemed at times to be quite willing and eager to inflict extreme penalties on me and others with little or no concern for actual justice of matters, by promoting and nurturing many forms of extreme distortion, deliberate deceits and outright slanders, in promoting such views and making attempts to minimize or erradicate my presence here.

I do expect that such declarations as these might not immediately be much noticed or heeded... but they are honest statements of opinion and will by one who is generally patient and tolerant of other's opinions and will — and promotes the proper rights of all people to express their opinions and will in many ways — to the extent that they are not innately intolerant and arrogant in unjustly oppressing or restraining the opinions and wills and proper rights of others. Some people are habitually prone to ignore or even deny the importance of such distinctions as exist in the types of opinions and wills as can exist — and what often seems to matter most to them is whether or not some specific will is one of their own or that of their allies or adversaries. The only freedoms from fear, oppression and injustice which many ever seek to defend are their own or those of their closest cronies — and those of others are something of little or no importance in their schemes of concerns. They fail to realize that in the patterns of Eternity, their acts of deliberate injustice or negligence towards others in many ways insure far fouler fates and dooms upon themselves. I too must often seem negligent to many — but quite often it is because I actually quite caught up in concerns far greater than they can discern. Thus I can usually forgive those who assail me in their ignorance and confusion — but I cannot pretend I am not sometimes angry and indignant at many of their most ignorant and presumptive acts of impositions and injustice.

Some will no doubt believe my minor essay here in response to a vandal's remarks, activities, and other frustrations, are in many ways excessive — and no doubt in many ways they are — and in other ways they are far from extensive enough in explicating many situations of concern to me and others. I, of course, must often digress from such matters as they think primary — such as their conveniences, comforts and powers to do what they think right — and I must often insist upon focussing on such things as they find trivial — such as my ability to do what I think right, and the abilities and rights of all people to attempt to do what they think right — until convinced by fair and proper reasons that what is right or best is otherwise than they had supposed — but I am a very odd person who, far more than most, is aware that many things, and perhaps ALL things are connected in ways both direct and indirect — and has faith in the truth that there is nothing hidden that shall not eventually be revealed — to the extent it MUST be. Such are some of the forms of knowledge and opinion which have often given me immense strength, fortitude, persistence and survival relative to those who place faith in lies and distortions — and often seem to have a ridiculous faith that those situations they most favor will endure with strength and honor forever, even if such strength and honor depends upon delusions and lies. So it goes. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 16:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC) + tweaks ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 16:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC); 17:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC); 17:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)…

Herla (talk · contributions) block 2011·05·21Edit

This exchange was originally located at Cirt

I continue to sincerely contend that your past and continued presumptive blocking of my other accounts here, and defacing their user pages as "abuse of multiple accounts", as well as moves to block and deface even the pages of my primary accounts elsewhere, thus preventing me from even doing quite simple and beneficial edits is an extreme misuse and abuse of your privileges as an administrator and as a human being. I do forgive you as an obviously very ignorant and confused person, but it is becoming a bit more than an irritation to me, and might soon warrant a far more extensive analysis and exposition of the obsessively insulting and destructive behavior you have sometimes obviously engaged in on a massive scale. I do hope to be able to help pardon you from some of the worst potential consequences of such activity, but there are always limits to what we can do for the benefit of other people, and I won't go so far to protect you from such humiliations and shame as you probably have often deserved, if it actually involves permitting harm to occur to far more innocent and admirable people — as some of your actions have already to some extent done, in my honest opinion. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 16:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC) + tweaks

Kalki, I wish you were able to communicate with other human beings, without simultaneously spewing forth attacks and vitriol at them. -- Cirt (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I can repeat the same assertion, on my part, in regards to you, and what genuinely seems to me to be your immense and apparently often oblivious hypocrisy. In coming months I do intend to clearly and gradually expand upon MANY of my past reasons for some of my past behavior and comments, or lack of them, and make many of the meanings of them far more clear to those who are so presumptive as to believe they known enough to judge others, and seek to overreach in what they can properly do to constrain and control the rights of other human beings. I sincerely DO wish you well, but because of this I will assert to you that just because you are someone who seems to be very skilled at disguising or denying your own capacities for vitriolic harshness and what I sincerely consider your deceitful and mind-poisoining behavior, does not mean that it goes entirely unnoticed. I have never called for you to be stripped of any of your privileges, despite what I consider your extreme misuse of them at times, and I continue to abide by that — I "attack" you with nothing more than presentation of my honest and sincere opinions — and "threaten" you with nothing more than a continued devotion to speaking with candor and sincerity in times of contention. For some years now I have been threatened, insulted and severely constrained and punished by people who presumed they had the right and duty to judge me and condemn me in ways that I contend were NOT clearly warranted, and in at least a few cases I believe actually clearly and greatly exceeded their actual duties and rights or what I consider to be basic human decency. We are adversaries on some matters, and will probably continue to be for some time yet — yet I have faced adversaries before, whom when they learned a bit more of my skills, abilities and what actually was motivating me to act in vigorous opposition to their will, recognized they had erred in far more ways than they could have ever anticipated, and became allies and even to some extent friends. I hope that can eventually be the case here, as unlikely as that seems at this time. There are other things of far greater concern to me than clarifying many of my motives and discernments to you — and I expect many of the most crucial ones shall become more evident in the months and years to come. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 17:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Please, stop posting to my talk page, now. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Further comments on above dialogue on Cirt's usertalk page and some of its motivations:

I truly delight to see the curt manner Cirt apparently likes to attempt intimidations by displays of subtle or bold hostility to any discussions that aren't going entirely in such directions as might prove most providential to the perspectives and biases that are most valued by that particular user. I certainly had no intentions of posting further comments to that page, and as I have stated, I have far better things to do than discourse with Cirt. As to the reasons I commented at all, with that particular deletion of material, is that it does show something of the apparently obsessive degree Cirt still considers me a persona non grata whose presence and influence here and elsewhere should be effaced and defamed to the fullest extent administrative status, trust and various forms of duplicity and a few facts and severe distortion of facts will permit it to be. Also, the comically profound presentations I had done on that page were some I was particularly fond of and have been restored at the Restorations page. I first learned of the Herla myths as a very young child… and found an odd dancing of words and worlds of ideas swirling around in my mind having to do with many variations and permutations of wordplay with Herla and History and Her Law and His Story, and many other related concepts, and I will probably eventually expand on some of these, in writings to be developed and presented elsewhere, in the coming months. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 22:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
P.S. — After noting the removal of material on this humorously auspicious "Judgement Day" of "Rapture" upon "Rapture" predicted or fantasized, i thought it appropriate to remark in the summary "The dog has jumped down." This was a somewhat humorous remark which has QUITE a few very interesting implications but I have no particular interest or need to go into them right now.... HAPPY JUDGMENT DAY! ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 23:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
P.P.S. — I just checked the edit summary of the Restorations page and realized what I had actually typed in was "The dog is jumping down. Kalki 2011·05·21 12:20:00" — Merry Rapture, Everyone! ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 23:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

RFA for exposed sockmaster who refuses to self-disclose all sock accounts and stop socking ???Edit

Originally posted at the Village Pump

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


Perhaps we are both doing what we think right. But what we think right is so damned different that there can be nothing between us in the way of concession. ~ G. K. Chesterton in The Man Who Was Thursday
Always be comic in a tragedy. What the deuce else can you do? ~ G. K. Chesterton
Moderate strength is shown in violence, supreme strength is shown in levity. ~ G. K. Chesterton
I made an AGREEMENT to use ONLY the Kalki account to edit here. I HAVE abided by it. ~ Kalki

In response to recent activity where Cirt suddenly resumed what seems to be an obsessive compulsion to deface and denigrate all traces of my presence on this or any other wikimedia wiki, I posted a brief statement at the bottom of my Kalki page, which I recently slightly revised for clarity:

 Before agreeing to defer to an IMPOSITION to restrict editing here ONLY to the Kalki account, until such a time as the issues involved could be more thoroughly addressed and decided upon, in order to lift a PLAINLY IMPROPER and POLICY VIOLATING BLOCK by Cirt (talk · contributions), this user had additionally made well over 11,444 contributive edits using many other names, for a present count of well over 74, 444 edits in all. MANY of these names and associated restored userpage messages have been salvaged from defacement at Restorations. MANY of the thousands of articles either created or significantly worked upon by this user are listed at Kalki/index.

In addition to the notices by Cirt here and elsewhere, the following notice appeared in my user namespace, while I was away from home. Upon returning, I noticed it, and have prepared this brief exposition of facts, for the benefit of those who might otherwise not be inclined follow links and discussions enough to delve into matters more than in the ways provided by a summation by Cirt here and at User:Kalki/Restrictions which I consider quite deficient and deceitful in many ways. Cirt's summary assessment is presented here, with some interjections of my own, as I cannot presently respond to it, on that LOCKED page in my user space:

1. October 2007 - Jeffq (talk · contributions) notices a sock account of Kalki that created multiple other sock accounts.
K: Cirt here links to only the first polite statements of suspicion in what was a quite civil and somewhat humorous discussion between me and Jeffq, in which I defended the right of all users to use multiple accounts, either openly or discretely, so long as improper activities were not engaged in, which I believe ended quite amicably, and neither he nor I pursued the matter further at that point. Much to my dismay, subsequent discussions eventually occurred in what I believe to have been the following year after some misidentification of some of my accounts elsewhere with a vandal's accounts. Despite my extreme irritation at loosing some account names I had wished to eventually use for educational purposes, I did not contend about the blocks, once I found out a bit more about the severe obnoxiousness of the vandal with whom I was falsely presumed to be associated, and simply let the loss of those accounts go by — wanting no further improper assessments or judgments to occur. I may eventually reveal far more of discussions which occurred by email on the matter to further indicate the general tenor and progress of them. There is MUCH missing from this assessment by Cirt which I might eventually fill in, in accounts of the history of my activity at Wikiquote and at other wikis which I intend to present here and elsewhere in coming months. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 09:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
2. November 2009 - Investigation by FloNight (talk · contributions) into socking and sockfarms maintained by Kalki.
K: I deliberately declined to bring up all the issues involved with my acquiring of these accounts, and some of their activities, as retaining admin status, though I felt it to be desirable was not worthy he complications of making some things clear to others I considered severely lacking in some forms of both rational and ethical integrity at that point. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 09:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
3. December 2009 - Kalki was desysopped, after an investigation which revealed socking including a massive sockfarm of over 200 sock accounts.
K: It is certainly true that I was desysopped —I lost the admin status which I had honorably used for many years, since the very first MONTHS of this wiki, after having been suggested as an appropriate person by Angela (talk · contributions). During the consideration period of that vote I had in fact declared my RESIGNATION of bureaucrat status, something I had LONG considered doing in protest of increasingly dictatorial encroachments on editorial rights for some time. Clearly facts were presented in a very deliberately damaging way, which I concede were very effective at casting my past activity here in dark shades which cast many justifiable suspicions upon me. I declined to defend myself as effectively as I might possibly have done, were my ethical concerns LESS than they were, and WAS desysopped, and I ACCEPTED this. The votes taken were clearly NOT upon the appropriateness of multiple accounts themselves — and I simply continued to use these, in constructive ways, despite some of their utility and worth being diminished by exposure as those of one person. I believe it is EVERY user's right to use multiple accounts. Months later Aphaia (talk · contributions), a person who herself HAS admittedly used multiple accounts, suddenly began blocking some of these accounts I was using AS IF that vote to desysop me had been a vote to limit accounts available to me — which it CLEARLY had NOT been.To state otherwise is a foul fiction of deceitfulness or delusion. Had it actually been the case, that the proposal were to limit the accounts available to me — or in ANY ways penalize me beyond desysopping for any of my past activities, I CERTAINLY would have made a far more vigorous and extensive defense of them and EXPOSED far more FACTS for consideration than I then chose to do — including those involving the truth that ANY newly proposed absolute restrictions upon the number of accounts available to editors wikimedia wide should probably be created by a Wikimedia wide debate and referendum on the matter — NOT by the fiat of a few admins at any individual wiki or among the cliques of like minded people interested in restricting editing rights they see little or no use for. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 09:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
4. October 2010 - Kalki was blocked for one week, for socking and disruption. When asked, Kalki openly refused to stop socking.
K: I, as well as others, asserted that this block was entirely INAPPROPRIATE one, which arose after a simple EDITING dispute with Cirt. It was followed by a massive defacement and block of my accounts here, and what I considered to be a very malicious cross-wiki spree of assaults upon my accounts and reputation elsewhere — a sudden and severe rampage of defamation and blocks upon my IPs and MANY of my account names. Cirt effectively silenced and has thus far effectively prevented me from contributing to other wikimedia projects where I have NEVER used ANY of these accounts in a manner I consider in the least bit controversial or improper. Many of these blocks even NOW remain in place as I have not yet bothered to present the strongest possible case against Cirt's harassment and defamation to others.
The link Cirt provides above is to my refusal I openly refused to comply with presumptive and hostile demands of Cirt to submit to Cirt's will and dictates which clearly were NOT in conformity with ANY properly established policy about which I was aware, and I assert this to have been an act of and CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE and open defiance to demands I considered to be in MANY ways, both against established policies and simple human ETHICAL principles. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 09:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
K: I will again note that Apahia, despite perhaps being more generally good-willed towards others than Cirt often appears to be, was actively hostile in blocking my accounts WITHOUT clear warrant even before Cirt was: Specifically first blocking my Achilles (talk · contributions) — under which she had once ASKED me to become an admin. I had vigorously DECLINED the request, even though at that time there were NO rules or regulations against multiple admin accounts here or anywhere else, to my knowledge. Despite my will to accumulate many optional identities for pragmatic reasons, I simply have never been a power-hungry status-seeking title. Later, as I continued to oppose BEHAVIOR I considered nothing less than dictatorial usurpation of rights and CONTRARY to any PROPERLY established policies of which I was aware the account Taliesin which I was using to OPENLY declare and mark many accounts as mine ~ Kalki
  • Aphaia declined the unblock review of the block on Kalki. diff
K: This was hardly surprising to me, as Aphaia was the person who WITHOUT community authorization had actually BEGUN blocking my accounts, whenever she noticed me using them, some months before. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 09:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
5. November 2010 - Kalki is restricted to one account. This is as per result of community imposed restriction proposal, from Village Pump. diff
K: In deference to what seemed to be community opinion, and in order to remove what I and others still consider to have been an improper blocking of my IP addresses and primary account, I AGREED to use only one account to edit here: the Kalki (talk · contributions) and I have rigorously ABIDED by that agreement. I have NEVER at any time agreed to disclose all of my accounts to such nosy and presumptive people as are most inclined to imply that they have to be aware of EVERYTHING done and reasons for it — or it should not be permitted. I decline to abjectly bow down to such arrogance as it manifests in ANYONE, and have no intentions to do so. Even were it demanded of me, after proper establishment of policies by proper voting on matters by Wikimedia editors, it would probably take me weeks to compile a nearly thorough list of my account names here, as I have never yet made a compact listing of all of them, and there might be a few I have never set down in a list, but which I would remember were I inclined to use them. In agreeing to restrict myself to the Kalki account I accepted such restrictions as were burdensome to me and others in ways I have not yet been inclined to reveal, but probably shall begin to in the coming months. Sufficient number of people insisted upon this measure as appropriate, or refused to be inclined to intervene in what I continue to assert was CLEARLY a hostile action by Cirt, AGAINST any policy mandates of proper use of blocking of which I am aware, which in addition to other things of more pressing personal concern, PREVENTED me from being able to respond in a timely and thorough manner to these assaults upon my dignity and reputations, and unethical DEFAMATION and HARASSMENT by Cirt.
  • The adopted restriction is:
    • Kalki be allowed to edit only with the account User:Kalki.
    • Any violations of the above can result in a 3 month block.
    • Further transgressions, result in blocks of increasing severity (perhaps 6 months, 1 year, indefinite).
K: This is again an attempt to imply that there is a past MANDATE imposed entirely as PUNISHMENT upon me, and though it is to some extent a punishment, I hold it an UNJUST one. I made an AGREEMENT to use ONLY the Kalki account to edit here. I HAVE abided by it. These further statements, so far as I can see, are NEW dictatorial presumptions on the part of Cirt — who is apparently attempting to currently IMPLY or insist that simply by not disclosing accounts which had previously escaped notice, that I violated my agreement, and in some way deserve immediate and long term blocks. Cirt has attempted to impose these in the past here, and HAS thus far successfully imposed them elsewhere, because I have chosen to not yet contest them, so ably as I can. Frankly, I find Cirt's assertions to largely be distortions of fact far fouler than any reeking hogwash, and which prompt me to such observations and exclamations as I will decline to make at this time. I will state frankly that they display to me a further will to have WORDS set down which distort facts enough to permit those in whom the will to CONSTRAIN and Constrict the rights of others and indeed to PUNISH and DO HARM to those who oppose their will is very strong and even in many ways a ruling passion — and Cirt's continued strategy of PREVENTING me from editing or commenting such foully distorted assertions as he makes upon the Userpages of my accounts displays a marked will to END discussion at such points as Cirt chooses, by FORCE and ABUSE of admin powers rather than resolved more clearly and fully by discussion and reason.

The above mentioned page was created within my user-namespace by an admin who has repeatedly demonstrated an obvious will to harass, defame, and attempt to prevent me from exercising my proper rights as a human being with sincere will for truth to be heard, from MANY perspectives, and not merely RESTRICTED to such facts and DISTORTIONS of facts as are most serviceable to malicious lies and delusions about the actual activities of other human beings.

I will sincerely state my opinion in saying that I truly believe that the repeated harassments of this admin are in many ways far more contemptible than that of MOST trolls and vandals, and I sincerely believe in some ways ranks as far more damaging to the welfare of others and this wiki and wikimedia projects than even the most noxious and obnoxious of deliberate vandals. I hold the dictatorial stances promoted to be an innate insult to the very spirit which founded the very worthy projects now administered by the WIkimedia Foundation.

Even now, I am probably NOT going to immediately respond so fully as I might to all issues here, as there are many other things which concern me I must attend to, and I wish to examine and expose many of the deficiencies and flaws in this analysis at my leisure. I will probably make a far more thorough assessment of this and other matters within the next month or two. I truly hope that Cirt and others will grow more enlightened and their lives be enriched by such truths as come to prominence in coming weeks and months, as discussion on these and other important issues proceed in the proper spirit for an honorable Wikimedia wiki — and NOT one of a Kangaroo court. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 09:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

ΩEdit