Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/015

January 5 and 6 QOTD pages


Up until yesterday, when I very briefly checked in on things here, the cascading auto-protect wasn't active this year, and I had put off working on the project pages for the January 5th and 6th QOTDs, because of other priorities — but auto-protect seems active now, and thus I am unable to edit these. I have placed selections for these days from the top ranked quotes at Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/January 5, 2010 & Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/January 6, 2010 which need to be copied to the appropriate project pages by an admin. I have now already made edits for the 7 January page, and will work a bit more today to insure that further QOTD pages for this month are prepared in advance. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 01:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been taken care of by Cirt. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 02:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]



This gentalman is ignoring my queries on his talk page. I hate to speak English in Rome per say but i find it unwelcoming and a way to scare off Newcomers to the project. Just a heads up and hope no offense is taken. Cheers. ISHOOTHORSES 21:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. For some help with your "queries", please see the welcome message I left on your talk page mere minutes after your first post. ~ UDScott 21:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser requests (3)


Thanks! ~ UDScott 21:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, FutureAlaskanSoda is me. I apologize I was just trying to grab your attention because I though you were ignoring my questions. Forgive me please. ISHOOTHORSES 21:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why check them per CheckUser policy.--Jusjih 00:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I though it was pretty obvious, but I requested these based on vandalism and harassment. ~ UDScott 01:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All have very different IPs.--Jusjih 05:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
THANK YOU!! Jusjih, I knew in my heart that justice would prevail. You have much to be proud of and are a model Wikiquotan. ISHOOTHORSES 20:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I blocked ISHOOTHORSES (talk · contributions) as a sock of a vandal only account. It is a subsidiary result in relation to a check on Stayinganonfornow (talk · contributions). I would like to note I Best be a Mexican! HOLA!! (talk · contributions) and ISHOOTHORSES shares a same IP address. --Aphaia 18:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Braff


The Zach Braff page should be protected for at least 6 months from anonymous edits, as it has for years now been the repeated target of peculiar defamatory vandalism. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 14:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ~ UDScott 14:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Rollins WQ:QLP revert war


I have become involved in a revert war over unsourced quotes at Henry Rollins. As an "involved editor" I do not want to semiprotect the article myself. As an administrator I think of this as a test case for whether Wikiquote:Quotes by living persons is going to become policy in its current form or whether it needs to be relaxed. Any thoughts? ~ Ningauble 17:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that this is the best article to be a test case. These quotes seem plausible and are scarcely defamatory.--Ole.Holm 19:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To me the issue is not whether or not the quotes are plausible, but whether or not a reliable source is provided for them. In the absence of such, they should be removed from the page. ~ UDScott 19:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, this is what makes a good test case for a proposed rule: something that a reasonable person could consider innocuous but that clearly violates the letter of the rule. At issue: Who is to decide what is plausible or what is potentially defamatory, and on what objective basis? It is plausible that anyone at all might utter some innocuous banality, but it could be considered defamatory to allege that someone speaks in banalities by falsely attributing a seemingly innocuous remark.

My own opinion, in broader context than this policy draft, is that if something is not specifically and verifiably cited to a person's work, a reliable firsthand report, or a notable attributor then, "If it ain't cited it ain't a quote." You can quote me on that.

I strongly urge the community to take a firm position on this at least with respect to living people. It is not only the living person's reputation that is at stake, but also Wikiquote's. If something is not verifiably cited then at most it might be researched on the talk page. If a purported quote is implausible or if it could plausibly be considered defamatory then it doesn't belong on the talk page either. ~ Ningauble 21:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for 1 week. Pages should not have unsourced quotes. They should be removed, and/or moved to the talk page to source later. Cirt (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When editing biographies of living people on Wikipedia, a specific notice warns that edits must follow the policy there, but I do not know what the MediaWiki code is. If anyone knows which one, please identify and we should consider upgrading WQ:QLP to a formal policy here.--Jusjih 05:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At Wikipedia this is not simply a MediaWiki message. Code was added to w:MediaWiki:Common.js last year that injects "&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro" into the url on the "edit this page" tab. We could do the same here with developer assistance if we finalize the policy, adopt template language, and decide it is not just beans. ~ Ningauble 21:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 8 QOTD


I have caught up on making selections from the top ranked suggestions to the the 24th, but the February 8th QOTD, by John Ruskin, "Punishment is the last and least effective instrument in the hands of the legislator for the prevention of crime", posted at Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/February 8, 2010 will need placement by an admin, because the rolling protection kicked in again; it had been off for several days, and I had got behind in making selections ahead of it when it did become active. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 23:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done, Cirt (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like what are you doing Cirt and Kalki and I also agree what you two are trying to do but please read manual of style before editing. I only came here to get bad pages deleted not the good ones thats all.(StarWarsFanBoy 05:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Achilles, a multiple account of Kalki is now blocked


For your information, I blocked Achilles (talk · contributions), identified as Kalki's multiple account, since it became again active. The last IP address used isn't blocked, unless incidentally blocked, so Kalki can continue to edit.

In my understandings we have reached editing through massive multiple accounts is a no on this community. The block aims to enforce it, but I am open to discuss and would like to make it sure that it is our consensus now. So instead of blocking all accounts, I'd rather invite the community to discuss it. (Better on WQ:VP? I'm not sure).

Cheers, --Aphaia 04:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the blocks you did Aphaia and besides those sockpuppets did nothing but do editing that is not following our Manual of Style.(StarWarsFanBoy 05:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I assert that this is once again, an arrogant ABUSE of powers and abilities that have been provided by status, to silence and diminish the rights of myself and others to artistic expressions on this project and others. I just checked in here, noted a few pieces of vandalism, and then noticed this further insult to my dignity and to the dignity of human Liberty, which has always been one of the founding principles at work on the wikimedia projects. This block of my Achilles (talk · contributions) account, is once again an arrogant presumption of IMPOSING a policy that does NOT exist, but which perhaps a few people believe should, and expect that others will not object with enough numbers or vigor to successfully oppose. I request an immediate UNBLOCK of this account. I assert once again, that to my knowledge, there has been NO clearly improper activity by that account, nor deliberately improper activity on ANY of my accounts. There have been questions and accusations raised by people long aware of and hostile to my use of them, which resulted in a successful stripping of my admin and bureaucrat status here, to which I made no further objections, as I plainly did not have enough support because of the accusations made and the suspicions created. Determinations of what policies should be in regard to multiple accounts have NOT been made, and this simply is ANOTHER example of the injustice which can be made by people overly presumptive of what their particular status on the wikis gives them the right to demand others do or not do. Many very improper assumptions have been made regarding my motives and aims, and my disappointment in many aspects of the character and moral integrity of many of my fellow editors continues. I have since the events of November and December become far more busy with other projects than I have been here, as both my usefulness and enthusiasm for activities here have subsequently diminished, but I certainly have no intentions to abandon activities here, nor to do anything here other than work as a devoted advocate of many forms of human virtues, such as humility, courage, honesty and compassion — of which there remains far too extreme a deficit in far too many people. My guises have all been fair and honest guises — I certainly am NOT claiming to be the Achilles of old myths and legends by my use of the name — simply a person who can admire many of the ideals this hero represented, as well as a person who like him, can recognize many of my own weaknesses and flaws — and all too many of those of others as well. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 07:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have LONG sought to use many names in many places as a way of promoting many admirable human ideals, NOT as a way of promoting myself personally — despite the efforts of some to find out more facts about me than I have been willing to provide, or to publish such facts about my activities as I would have preferred remain obscure to most. My use of multiple names here has been something of a long time minor "hobby" of sorts, as in the earliest years here there had developed few objections to such activities, and though this ability has plainly been misused and abused by vandals and trolls, taking away such abilities from people intent on using various names for making responsible edits does not actually do much to impede the most persistent and prolific of vandals or trolls at all. I might be accused of being a rather eccentric name-grabber — but I assert that I stand in steadfast defiance of power-grabbers and mere status-grabbers who seek to diminish and constrain the proper rights and freedoms of others, by gradual or blatant denial of others the rights to do anything their limited imaginations or aims cannot conceive of being in any way good. I assert I have always had good intentions and continue to have good intentions — but I do not seek to deny or disguise the fact that I can be irritated and angered when people presume it their right to dictate to others such policies or demands as actually exceed their proper authority, and I assert that once again this IS occurring. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions), using my account as Taliesin 07:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kalki, that is the most selfish bloated pieces of self-posturing I have seen in a long time. Coupled with a quite slanderous and egregious attack, unsupported by a shred of evidence, seemingly based on the point that you don't like it.
The community has already addressed this matter to you through the decision to desysop you. You lectured the community then, you seem to be lecturing us again, and it does not seem that you wish to listen to what is being said to you in that the community does not wish for it to either occur or to continue.
The issue of accounts is valid to the whole of the WMF community as global accounts are the means to login to the system, and it has been clearly indicated that sockpuppets are not encouraged, and if there is a specific requirement then the user should look to indicate their use. You have hundreds of accounts, and maybe it is the time where you listen and act as the community has indicated their preference. You have to stop thinking that this is all about you, and your wishes, that is quite an arrogance. Do you really want this to be escalated bigger and broader through WMF?
It is quite preposterous that the community is here to support your whims, your multiple accounts, and now your facile baseless and false accusations. I care not about any information about you, I have already seen quite enough of your apparently puerile and selfish misbehaviour. Billinghurst 14:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am defiant of the implicit insults upon me and the quite explicit attacks upon my own and everyone's proper freedom to use their imaginations in finding ways to help others find the learning of significant truths interesting. Once again a few people seem inclined to speak as if THEY and their presumptive judgments clearly represented the will of the whole community, and my behavior was clearly and irrefutably "misbehavior" because it defies such presumptions and expectations. I once again have just stepped in to check on things, and presently have only a brief time — but the issue on any limits on multiple names has NOT been clearly and separately addressed as Aphaia and the above user seem to presume it to be, neither here nor on the Wikimedia projects as a whole. Many people clearly DO seek to discourage such activity as my own with greater restrictions than currently exist, or to feel entirely free to ACT as if they already DO, for various reasons; but many people do NOT, also for various reasons, which might be far less extensive than my own, but are still rather strong and legitimate reasons.
I am reminded of todays QOTD: "The people who have sufficient passion for the truth to give the truth a chance to prevail, if it runs counter to their bias, are in a minority. How important is this "minority?" It is difficult to say at this point, for, at the present time their influence on governmental decisions is not perceptible. ~ Leó Szilárd
No matter what might be assumed by a few, the clear truth is that ONLY the issue of the doubts and lack of confidence about the worth of my motives and aims have been addressed by the few votes which were required to succeeded in desysoping me in November and December. This occurred by the revelations in November that I had long defied the expectations of many and presumptuous demands made by a few people, and continue to do so, because I consider it not only my right — but my moral DUTY. Those who are currently objecting to my continued use of other accounts are probably quite aware that getting the votes to actually impose such a policy as they seem to be seeking to ESTABLISH by PRESUMPTIONS of their supposed RIGHT to do so would be far more difficult thing to get done than that vote actually was, because it would involve OVERTURNING long established policies — policies that existed since the earliest years of the wikis. A proper addressing of the issue clearly and reasonably prior to identifying me as someone defiant of the attempts to CREATE or IMPOSE restrictions that were DICTATED by a few people would have been far more appropriate, and I would then have felt it necessary to abide by any decisions eventually reached, but such action was NOT taken, and only my decreased interest in working on this site has diminished my activities editing here, either as Kalki, or by any of my other available names. I happened to edit as my long used and well used and CLEARLY identified Achilles account on a whim yesterday, from another browser than I usually used, and I discovered that this was once again being presumed to be improper behavior, when the use of alternate accounts, either identified or NON-identified is NOT forbidden behavior, so far as I know on ANY Wikimedia project. Diminishing the freedoms of use, and creating of NEW restrictions on users rights and privileges, and the implicit or explicit demand that people must conform their activity and comply with the will of others solely by the whims of others, be they admins, bureaucrats or any other representatives of the established rules of the community is something that I clearly oppose. THAT is the arrogation of authority that I rejected in the past, when I was a long established admin, and once again reject now, after my defiance cost me much of my prestige and all of my official status here. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions), using my account as Taliesin 12:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh what a load of drivel to try and justify your position without listening to valid concerns, around some loose convention that existed at a point of time, and has no regard to the development of the wiki and its systems. There is a very clear principle in all that surrounds user accounts, and sockpuppets. That the rule and procedure allows variation, you take that and abuse the overarching principle, rather than appreciate it in a true and honest context of its definition. Your constant bleatings about you, and your whimsical dismissing and belittling of any other opinions and concerns is getting ugly. I keep hearing the quote of my long deceased father, "While you can baffle them with bullshit some of the time, it is still bullshit." Billinghurst 14:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the above conversation, I'm at a loss to figure out what Kalki did with his sock accounts to merit their being blocked. Wikipedia actually has a section in its policy on sockpuppetry outlining "Inappropriate uses of alternate accounts" and "Legitimate uses of alternate accounts", and while Kalki's past use at least may have been a bit extreme in the number of accounts, he has done nothing to fall under the "Inappropriate" header. That may not be our policy here, exactly, but I simply see no reason why Kalki, no longer an administrator, can not make positive contributions under whatever name he wishes. BD2412 T 15:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two concerns on my side: 1) Kalki's way to create a massive number of accounts waste checkusers time for years. As noted, it was 20072008 we faced this concern first. His way of making socks and setting up userpages are quite similar with vandals who make sleepers and then begin to attack the projects, so we need to investigate those accounts. It is simply a waste of time, and I don't think his contributions, even if I appreciate it greatly, deserves waste of times of volunteers in this manner. 2) Since we left his accounts unblocked for a while, other banned users with socks think now our project welcome this manner and try to lift up their block. This came to me from Poetlister in an inappropriate way (no indicated way, that is, through OTRS, but a private mail asking it secret from the other admin). Please note contributions to this project from this guy were not vandalism per se and the Poetguy might take our patience now an allowance of restart of his own sock farm building. I think it was no first time I say, but piling up socks in this manner (over 200 now) is simply a disruptive action in my opinion. Also I think it as abuse of WMF resources (please note we cannot delete accounts). Regardless what kind of edits has been submitted with those accounts, creation of massive accounts by one person is an abuse the global community is concerned, hence need to suppress. --Aphaia 18:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this comment by Aphaia (talk · contributions). Cirt (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is something I've held in for many years. Im sure many of the longtime admins here remember the Wazzawazzawaz attacks we experienced in 2006 and 2007 [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. To sum it up for those of you that weren't here back in those days: there was a 3-4 month period where massive complicated trolling attacks that extended into Wikinews caused so much destruction and confusion that admins were distracted from things more important to the project NPOV etc. The attacks also targeted a trusted admin here Jeffq more often than not. You will notice however that they never focused around Kalki. I was advised by [User:Kalki|Kalki]] that he was behind the attacks over IRC in August of 2007. I never said anything about it because I figured it was over. Well, I was wrong. This is just something I had to let off my chest and I think it is for the better of the project that it is known. I'd rather not say who I am in the Wikiverse for obvious reasons. Good day ladies and gentlemen. Stayinganonfornow 01:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to hear from Kalki on this claim. BD2412 T 04:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
May I invite you to examine this [10] made just minutes ago by Wazzawazzawaz / Kalki. Isin't it strange that the Wazzawazzawaz account which had been inactive for years suddenly made this edit? Stayinganonfornow 04:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That could just as easily be you. I'd like to hear from Kalki. BD2412 T 04:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously suggesting that I am the Wazzawazzawaz vandal, just to go inactive for over 4 years and suddenly return during the recent events regarding Kalki? You have got to be kidding me. I would not be suprised if you are not just another of Kalkis sockpuppets. Stayinganonfornow 04:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also find it suspicious BD2412 T that your account was created in and around the same time frame as the Wazz vandals. I'm willing to submit to a check user to prove my innocence. The question is are you? Stayinganonfornow 04:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I already did so when I sought adminship here. Mike Godwin knows my real identity, and can vouch for me. Please note, I have made over 300,000 constructive edits to various Wikimedia projects (and a full-time job). I don't have time to be anyone but me. Cheers and as a note for future reference FUCK OFF! BD2412 T 05:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how cursing helps your case at all? And how is this constructive? Stayinganonfornow 05:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] you just reverted a vandalish edit you made using one of your sock puppets. However, you accidentally did it using your BD2412 T account. Funny how the small mistakes out you in the end isin't it? Stayinganonfornow 05:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, of course, the vulgarity was added by an alt of Stayinganonfornow; but I'll leave it be, since it is contextually appropriate, and it apparently indulges some desire on his part, and who am I to condemn what excites him? BD2412 T 00:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ran checks and concluded Stayinganonfornow (talk · contributions) is identical with some other accounts including Wazzawazzawaz (talk · contributions). They are hardblocked. The IP address used is assigned to an educational institute so it may be soften, but currently no other person seems to be affected. --Aphaia 07:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to note this user and his/her socks have been blocked on a number of other wikis also where they have made attempts at harassing Kalki. Tiptoety talk 08:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A gnat can sting a lion or a horse or a human— but it remains a gnat, and the lion remains a lion, the horse a horse and the human a human, but those humans who take delight in doing evil make themselves into something more loathsome, paltry and repellent to the wise than any mere insect could ever be.
Our lives and the worlds of our experience are necessarily full of ambiguity, paradox and clear contradictions between many of the various impressions we mortals can have.

I can state that that the very obvious troll and vandal has definitely lied in some of his or her declarations, including the claim that I engaged in any sort of conversation with anyone claiming to be a supporter of or participant in such forms of idiocy as are commonly engaged in by vandals and trolls.

I have long been aware that providing more facts than it is necessary to reveal to the most corrupted and malicious of minds is usually a very dangerous practice, which provides them many means to distort the appearances of facts to serve their own devious and demented aims and inclinations. This is was one of the reasons why I was alarmed a few months ago when many facts about me and my activities were made openly available to many forms of idiot, and why despite some desire to clarify matters to those who are primarily fair and benevolent I generally refrain in engaging in too much open discussion with people who I perceive to be plainly deluded in some very clear ways. To the extent that I can, I will persist in various attempts at making many of the wisest expressions of the many of the best and least deluded minds more accessible to others, through this particular project and by other means.

I am hoping to make many things far more clear about my actual actions, motives and inclinations in the coming months — but I certainly do not intend to respond so fully and vigorously as I could to all the accusations, foolish impressions and other forms of nonsense of all the wanton trolls, vandals, or other forms of idiot which I encounter here or elsewhere. Nor will I commit myself to always, nor even usually, giving explicit encouragement and support to all the forms of wise expressions or actions which might occur in the course of events, though I am far more inclined to do that, when I have the time and opportunity to do so. There are far more important things that demand my attention and focus than those things which go on here, and some of the fiercest storms of other people's confusions which I have encountered in these wikis are merely mild tempests in a tepid teapot compared to the actual dangers, hardships, fates and dooms which I have sometimes faced in my life, and continue to face.

I seek to make or help others to make many clear and impressive revelations of many vitally important truths, so vigorously as I can. I myself am quite aware that there is a truly vital need for many more revelations of facts and Truth than I myself could ever make, and that those most interested in revealing universally important truths, rather than merely perniciously promoting awareness or belief in those few facts, errors or outright lies which most serve ones personal or partisan agenda, are those who are most worthy of the support of myself and others. Those who seek either prestige, comfort or simple notoriety through the harming or constraining of others in unjust or unnecessary ways are those who engage in such behavior as I often find to be extremely contemptible. That does not mean that I find these people totally contemptible, nor even that I cannot see that their behavior can seem to have reasons that seem valid and justified to them — often I can clearly perceive that it does — even though it is usually not such reason as I myself could agree with or accept as valid. I will usually attempt to make many vitally important truths as clear as possible to others, even those I find most contemptible, so that truths can be built upon rather than immediately and boldly seek to confront and destroy many of their worst delusions head on. This is not always possible, but it is a general tendency with me, and I often mourn and sorrow when more suffering and damage than might have been absolutely necessary occurs to anyone, even many of my most vicious or obstinate opponents. People who are so deeply deluded that they regularly take intense delight in causing others harm and distress cannot usually recognize how pathetic and paltry their aims seem to the wisest of people. But some, detecting that the nobility of others might make their forms of worth seem miniscule in comparison, often seek ways to make those who are most magnanimous and noble seem in some ways lesser than themselves, and take delight in any harm or pain which they can cause.

To extend upon a few long used metaphors: A gnat can sting and irritate a lion or a horse or a human— but it remains a gnat, and the lion remains a lion, the horse a horse and the human a human, but those humans who take delight in doing evil make themselves into something more loathsome, paltry and repellent to the wise than any mere insect could ever be.

This is a very brief summary of some of my thoughts and some of the strongest forms of my personal inclinations. I know that I do not and cannot always succeed in conveying awareness of all that I know or would like people to know through my own words or through other people's words, but I make efforts to be as helpful as I can, and only as hurtful to anyone, as I truly feel to be necessary in the service of fairness, truth and liberty. This is quite the opposite tendency which I detect in people who are inclined to misuse their abilities and freedoms to become trolls and vandals on the internet, and those who are inclined to be harsh and as brutal as possible to others, through whatever means are available to their paltry minds and wills, whether through very deceitful distortions of facts or through outright lies.

Our lives and the worlds of our experience are necessarily full of ambiguity, paradox and clear contradictions between many of the various impressions we mortals can have. Some deeply deluded and dangerous fools delight in outright lies, so long as they can distress, harm, embarrass or humiliate those they are for any reasons hostile to, or simply pathetically and apathetically indifferent towards. It is even more dangerous when they can seize upon a few facts to make their hostilities seem in any way rooted in truly valid and righteous motivations, rather many forms of personal envy, resentment, and jealousy. Far more common are those who have no existing wishes to maliciously lie or deceive — but who are willing to believe or pretend to believe many forms of malicious deceits and lies because they serve their personal vanity or selfish and partisan aims — and often, being far more numerous, capable and actually powerful, it is often these who are far more dangerous to human welfare.

I have long realized that the best ways to deal with many forms of noxious and obnoxious behavior as many engage in is rarely to make overly constraining rules about what can and cannot be done by any person or persons, but to make very clearly constrained, limited and conditional rules about what seems best within any set of circumstances, such as one has known or perceived to be possible, and to always be open to the fact that there ARE many conditions, circumstances within Reality and strategies by the malicious — and by the benevolent — such as one has not encountered nor even imagined to be possible. My experiences have taught me that the most devious and malicious of minds often have far more skill and ability to exploit established rules to their own aims than those of genuinely good will usually do. Thus I generally refrain from either creating or supporting any more rules about anything than I truly believe to be necessary, and to avoid treating any rule devisable or perceivable by mortal minds as an absolute one, including this one. I do believe that there are absolutely reliable rules and forms of enlightenment which my own mind and other's minds can perceive and recognize, many aspects of which can never be absolutely and incorruptibly expressed by any mortal means, but there are many ways of expressing or indicating them which can be useful or adequate within a wide range of circumstances. This sums up a few of the reasons I am so intensely devoted to the ideals of Justice, Truth and Liberty, — and of freedoms of all people absolutely constrained only by what is vitally true and necessary — and not merely what might seem convenient and useful to oneself or a few other people. To limit others in ways that are not clearly necessary not only prevents many forms of beauty and benevolence from arising — but often limits the vigor of responses one can make to various forms of ugliness, malice, evil, and ignorant indifference to the harm that is done to many. ~ 17:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I will state that BD2412 (talk · contributions) is definitely a person other than myself, NOT any alternate identity of mine, and someone whom, to my knowledge, I have never met or spoken to. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 17:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2: User:Taliesin


I blocked Taliesin (talk · contributions) from editing this wiki. As well the statement above, it is not acceptable for community members to submit a message/opinion for building consensus anonymously when the community is making a decision, or enforce their norms. User:Taliesin warned an anon, but left no signature (see edit). It is not within the scope of "acceptable usage of multiple accounts" as far as I understand, so I placed this blocking. --Aphaia 08:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Kalki is continuing to use sockpuppets I am afraid that more drastic action may need to be taken. Tiptoety talk 09:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely do NOT have much time to bother with this nonsense today, or perhaps this week — but Taliesin (talk · contributions) was an account openly exposed and openly marked as mine, and again, I know of no rules anywhere against such open use of alternate accounts, and if I inadvertently left no signature in posting a warning to someone who was removing content from the wiki, that is hardly something that is all that exceptional an error, even for experienced users, and it is ludicrous to imply that I thus was somehow doing something nefarious or which was worthy of blocking. I must be leaving now for at least an hour, after which I will be preparing to leave for somewhere else for at least several hours, so I won't have much time or opportunity for any discussion or debate until probably sometime tomorrow. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 16:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to leave, because I have very much to do today and over the next week, but before I leave I wish to make very clear that Apahia is someone who herself has admitted to using alternate accounts in the past, for her convenience, and I know of no reason why she should ever stop doing so, or need to publicize any or all she might have — but I DO wish she would stop treating me as if using any of mine — even the openly declared ones, let alone those I have not declared — for rather simple innocuous activity was somehow behavior that should be automatically suppressed, and any of my accounts other than Kalki which I use, preemptively blocked, because it might somehow someday do something clearly forbidden. THE HYPOCRISY IS ASTOUNDING. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 16:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just stick to one account? Is it really that hard? Everyone else seems capable of doing so, and honestly it would make all these problems go away. Tiptoety talk 22:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A sufficiently expository, well-measured and well honed-response to such suggestions as I would find fully satisfactory and appropriate is not something I have either time or inclination to deliver at present. I am far too busy with far too many other things, and now expect to be extraordinarily busy, even for myself, for at least the next month. Because of this I will decline to press the issue for discussion at this time, and indeed probably will refrain from using my alternate accounts simply to avoid the bother incurred by hostility towards my use of them, but I do NOT concede that this should be necessary, nor in any way condone or accept the appropriateness of the blocks already made. Presently I might only spend a very short time working here a few times a week. I might possibly return to addressing the issue further in a few weeks, but there is definitely much I must get done elsewhere before I will have the time and opportunity to do so. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 23:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think your case would be better plead with fewer words and less emotion. Show us the governing policy. BD2412 T 00:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been re-created again, by an IP previously blocked as a cross-wiki vandal. The article has also been edited by two accounts that have no other edits; can I please request a Checkuser.

Ole.Holm 13:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please also check the following accounts involved in previously deleted versions ([11], [12]) of the article:
  1. Hellomyfriend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  2. OMGstrings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  3. Mybutthurts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Note that this subject is the object of cross-wiki vandalism/sockpuppetry [13]. ~ Ningauble 14:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And there are yet more probable socks:
  1. Differentnow09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  2. Computergeek67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  3. Never Ever Forget (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  4. Agentsman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Please, delete and salt. Gordonofcartoon 00:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The {{db}} tag has now been removed. Is there any point in moving a {{vfd}} or will it just delay deletion for a week?--Ole.Holm 22:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I deleted it again before seeing this discussion. I felt completely justified as I knew that this had been deleted twice before and the subject is still not notable enough for a page. Didn't mean to interfere with this discussion though. ~ UDScott 00:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I salted the article since it was created. To UDScott, no worry we can run a check on them despite of deletion - those registered users left their mark on account creation log. I'm now giving a look and try to notify the results to my checkuser colleagues soon. --Aphaia 16:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I hardblocked those listed accounts as well as newly found two. --Aphaia 16:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Those two were listed in Ole.Holm's original post above. Not sleepers, they edited the deleted "Sarey Savy (singer)" article.) ~ Ningauble 17:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Got it. Thanks! The article page itself was salted btw.) --Aphaia 02:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 March QOTD

  The proper method for hastening the decay of error, is not, by brute force, or by regulation which is one of the classes of force, to endeavour to reduce men to intellectual uniformity; but on the contrary by teaching every man to think for himself.

~ William Godwin ~


An admin will need to place the above on the project page for Wikiquote:Quote of the day/March 3, 2010, as I have failed to place it soon enough to avoid the rolling protection. I have currently made selections from the top ranked quotes up to 6 March, and will probably try to make more for the month later in the week. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 23:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done. Cirt (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]