The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.
The result was: Unsuccessful application. At this point, it is clear that this request will not succeed, and that keeping it open any longer will only provide a platform for those who disapprove of the applicant to express opposition, which has at some times in this process come in unnecessarily negative tones. Finally, I would note that I am giving little weight to the opinions of editors who have scarcely edited this project, as they are less likely to fully understand our working atmosphere here. BD2412T 14:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am submitting myself as a candidate for adminship here once again.
I was once an admin here (from 29 January 2004 to 1 December 2009), and also a bureaucrat for most of those years, and never abused the abilities entailed by those privileges, as I believe others have sometimes done, with far too little tolerance for comment or complaint. I assert that I myself have occasionally been the victim of extreme cross-wiki harassment and slander against my reputation, involving a very few people eager to magnify the constraints and defamations they would heap upon myself, and yet I have remained dedicated to serving the Wikimedia projects in whatever ways I could. I last submitted a nomination to regain adminship on 14th of March of 2012.
I am well aware of the inclinations of some to seize upon whatever facts or fallacies they can to diminish the prestige or abilities of others, believing it enhances their own prestige or advantages, and of others to sincerely appreciate and honor the worth and dedication of others, no matter how much they might disagree on many matters. I believe that this is ever and always the inclination of the greatest and best of people.
I believe my dedication to this project and to the principles of truth, justice and liberty, with a deep commitment to such honesty and compassion as have established and sustained most of the Wikimedia projects will be quite evident to fairly reflective minds, and I hope to once more increasingly serve this project a bit more ably, and without at least some of the constraints or limitations which have been placed on me in recent years by the will of others.
I have been an avid worker on the project since its first days of operation, and though some of my eccentricities and forms of honesty might confound those who are habituated to expect far less imaginative and far more dishonest or dull and deferential inclinations in others, I have rigorously honored my commitments here, despite their sometimes having been imposed in ways I found unjust and vile, and I intend to continue to do so. Whether or not this attempt to regain adminship is successful, in the coming year, I also intend to make more plain some of the reasons I am so adamantly opposed to many forms of unjust constraints and foul assumptions many people do not even seem to easily recognize as such, so pervasive have they become, and so perniciously are they promoted or pursued. I hope to do so in ways which will ultimately increase the awareness and happiness of many others — even those who have sometimes been adversaries to me and such principles as I hold dear. Such has ever been my attitude and inclination, and I hope to be able to increasingly exhibit it here in the years to come. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC) + tweaksReply[reply]
24 January 2014
Support: Kalki has been contributing to Wikiquote since 2003, and has nearly 100,000 edits here by now. There is hardly any article you can find, that Kalki hasn't edited and substantially improved before. I believe Kalki is a hero. It takes courage for him to come here and volunteer to serve Wikiquote, when he knows that people who almost don't edit here will doubtlessly oppose him, and he needs to be commended for that. Regarding his old sockpuppet accounts, they have not been used maliciously, and, as far as I can tell, they were created because Kalki likes to decorate user pages with beautiful quotes and pictures. But that is ancient history. He has been limited to one account only for quite some time now, and was checked on Wikipedia recently, revealing that he has kept his promise and stuck to one account. There are more important disagreements that one may raise, such as his verbosity, and perhaps excessive use of images in articles. However, as Kalki has never misused his admin tools, and is extremely unlikely to ever misuse them, him gaining adminship would in no way help him win arguments or settle scores. And we have to contrast these fears with the unquestionable gains that would result from him being an admin here, which are enormous. Wikiquote has some very good admins, but they are not many in number. Giving Kalki his adminship back would not only allow him to revert vandalism much quicker, but also to block rampant vandals that have persistently vandalized and defaced our articles, sometimes for hours on end, when there was no admin around. Think about this. Making Kalki an admin would go a long way to change this situation, and I believe this reason alone is sufficient to make electing him admin our best possible decision, and in the best interest of Wikiquote. Strong support from me. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Support - You shouldn't dwell on the past, but look at the present. You need to be forgiven. --~~Goldenburg111 22:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thank both of you very much — I have long been forgiving others — and hope to be increasingly able to pardon some from many of their forms of confusion soon. Whatever the outcome of this attempt, I am increasingly committing myself to doing much this year, here and elsewhere. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 23:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC) + tweakReply[reply]
Support: - Kalki has been the most active editor in Wikiquote with nearly 100,000 edits. As for the two users Malarka, Taquito I do not recognize their vote and opposition. As they have made no major contribution to help and improve Wikiquote they have only vandalized. As a result These mindless vandal, who followed the same edit pattern as the other Dragon Ball vandals and sockpuppets, have been blocked by administrators. Miszatomic (talk) 13.06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Support : Kalki deserves a second change here (also), yet I share Macspaunday's (and part of Cirt's) concerns. -- Mdd (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)/ 13:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, very much. I would like to note that I have already served for several years as an admin and have always been ready to listen to and respect people with views VERY different from my own, but I am not inclined to pretend any respect for views which imply or seek to mandate a disrespect for the rights of others, or assume the right to dictate to others what is or should be considered "best" for them — or to participate in the suppression of their proper rights, simply to be counted as "one of the gang." I am NOT interested in being part of ANY "gang" aiming to suppress or deny the rights and dignity of others. That is about as simple as I can put it — and I could go on for hours and days as to why I have such stances. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 02:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC) + tweaksReply[reply]
Support. Wikiquote, as it is today, would very likely not even exist without Kalki's tireless efforts throughout the last 10 years. He should be given the WQ version of founder flag in addition to the normal sysop permission. I can forgive one or two sock farms per 100000 good edits. jni (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a person who has been here over 9 years yourself, I thank you very much for your vote and kind words. I do wish to stress though that my alternate accounts were never intended to cause disruptions, but actually to avoid them (and sometimes to fight them), especially in the early relatively lonely years here; and not to evade actual responsibilities or clearly defined and legitimate policies. I would also emphasize that I have remained faithful to my commitment to not use them, so Cirt seeking to imply much about how much of a "menace" I am because of them is somewhat laughable. I am only menacing in any way to some forms of long standing delusions and lies — not to the proper rights of any people, or this worthy project. Thanks, and Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC) + tweaksReply[reply]
Support. As I have stated in the past, both in similar adminship discussions and elsewhere, I do believe that despite the often overblown dramatics that Kalki is prone to include in any discussion, the success of Wikiquote is the ultimate goal. I don't always agree with some of the presented arguments, but I do believe the project would be better served by restoring Kalki to admin status. Actually, I agree more often than not, but find myself sometimes lost in the rhetoric. That is my only wish: that someone who is an admin act in a more direct manner, answering questions and debating topics without adding long, off-topic essays. I feel that part of being an admin (in addition to protecting the project from vandals and the like) is representing it well and educating and encouraging others. However, that aside, I do feel that Kalki has much to add to the project and has demonstrated numerous times (even when dealing with blocks and attacks) a dedication to improving WQ above all else. This is to be commended and rewarded, in my opinion. There are others that already possess the admin tools with whom I also disagree at times - but that has never led me to call for them to be stripped of these tools. I believe that such actions are punitive in nature and should be reserved for egregious offenses (of which I do not believe Kalki has ever been truly guilty). From my early days here on WQ, I have always found Kalki to be a source of knowledge and insight on the workings of the project. And I believe it is important to have different voices here so that we are truly a community and not just a group that marches as one. In summary, I would be pleased to see Kalki regain the ability to fully contribute to the project once again. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much. I admit that I still tend to be a bit verbose, in my earnestness to be as precisely honest as I can with words — but I believe I have trimmed down what I am inclined to state in words considerably, for many reasons. I hope to be even more at ease with a bit more casual demeanor in the future. Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 14:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. After refusing to voluntarily restrict himself to one account, Kalki had these restrictions imposed upon him by the community, User:Kalki/Restrictions. It would be unwise to promote someone to admin that is under such restrictions after a massive history of creating sockfarms of over two-hundred (200) socks. More info laid out at User:FloNight/Kalki. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I certainly did refuse to volunteer to restrict myself to one account, in ways that were not then generally mandated, nor are they now. In response to your plainly policy-violating sudden block of me in a minor editing dispute, after which you went on a cross-wiki rampage against my accounts, and the unwillingness of others to recognize it as such, or to effectively oppose it for what it was, I accepted a coerced agreement to get my editing rights here back. Despite what I consider the truly vile UNETHICAL and DISGRACEFUL way this was coerced, I have remained true to my commitment, something I cannot say in regard to others, and their expressed assertions to uphold the principles with which these wikis were founded.
One thing I would very probably do with admin tools is simply to make at least a few honest and enlightening comments on that page which you created and locked, in my own userspace, which would address some of the extremely obnoxious distortions that page contains, and expose how much of a deceitful hatchet-job on my reputation you have been making here and in cross-wiki harassment of me for several years now. I mentioned its creation by you in 2011 in the chronological record of events I had been developing in the past, and intend to fill this page in with many more facts far more thoroughly this year. I am providing further links to augment these and those you have posted in the comment section within that section below. So it goes… ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 04:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - this user is a known puppeteer throughout the wikis. i hate people who make accounts for no reason, and am gonna tell my frends to oppose this silly request. Seriously, I never heard of a sysop with a history of constant sockpuppetry!Malarka 8:25 AM, 01/18/14 (vandalism-only account, !vote stricken) DanielTom (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This comment appears to be an actual sock puppet of a person who has recently been vandalizing this wiki. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 16:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excuse ME? & this is coming from a puppetmaster?! Of course youre only saying that because I am opposing. The nerve! Malarka 8:41 AM, 01/18/14
Comment : This user has just been blocked for making fake edits inline with similar long time ongoing vandalism. -- Mdd (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - This user posted a comment recently saying that he has practiced "civil disobedience" instead of conforming to policy guidelines. if the project comes to be administered by editors who deliberately ignore policy, then the project will probably become ungovernable. Here is the comment, copied directly from Village Pump: - Macspaunday (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Start quotation from Village Pump -- " I have sometimes engaged in direct action of rather mild and moderate civil disobedience in accord with the principles of Justice and Liberty that others seem quite satisfied to give little more than a lot of shallow and safe "lip service" to. In this particular case, I view "the merits or faults of the policy" that was devised by a few people some months ago as nothing more or less than thoughtlessly or deliberately giving free reign to those most eager to censor, VANDALIZE and remove any traces of MANY of the IDEAS and efforts of others to make generally important points and generally appealing presentations of the quotes here. I am actually inclined to use far harsher terms, but restrain myself for now. Even at the start I recognized these proposed "rules" as contemptible and unworthy of any significant respect, as simply devices providing implicit sanction and approval to the most narrow-minded, intolerant and malicious of people, most eager to denigrate the contributions of others, to destroy as rapidly as they could, and with VERY little consideration, what others might have taken months or years of careful consideration to gradually produce. I truly consider the fact that so inanely destructive and foully fascist an "ideal" and practice as those INNATELY unjust "policies" represent have not been recognized as such by others as simply disgraceful. Such an atmosphere created by the increasing arrogance and smug intolerance of those who seek to control and constrain others, and the bafflement and disgust of those who wish to contribute in the spirit of liberty advocated by the greatest of people, and which was one of the foundational principles of the wiki software, and the Wikimedia projects themselves is what I believe far more people than myself find appalling and sometimes discouraging." -- end of quotation from Village Pump
That was a very brief and honest response to some of the assertions of others who I believed were or are neglecting MUCH, and apart from minor grammatical errors from the haste of composition, I stand by it. One of the points related to it, is that that page of so-called "policy" itself represents an actual and PROFOUND VIOLATION of the very PRINCIPLES with which wiki software was developed by Ward Cunningham and others, and used as the basis for the Wikimedia projects with the support of Jimbo Wales and most of those who joined in the development of them. I assert that those proposed rules as they stand were composed by a few, for the convenience of a few, with implicit disregard and disdain for the LONG STANDING RIGHTS of ALL, and I consider it a DISGRACEFUL ABOMINATION OF DEPRAVITY not to recognize that IT is indeed in EFFECT simply FASCIST POLICY, whatever pleasant words one might wish to use to hide, disguise or ignore that FACT. I could express much more extensively both my rational and passionate reasons for opposing and denying the presumed legitimacy of such policies, but I don't wish to make too much of a fuss about things, if people have begun to recognize the profound ethical and rational errors incorporated in that page. I can be a very determined and fierce fighter of many errors I consider foully fascist, but I am also ever willing to forgive those who slip into them, and bless those who can rise out of them, or avoid them altogether.
I also do soon have to be leaving once again, for at least an hour or so. So it goes… ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC) + tweaksReply[reply]
Oppose now Hola. I was contacted from Frieza-Force for oppose Kalki because "corrupt administrator"? This is maybe true, so no should be never elected. Gracias a todos!Taquito (vandalism-only account, zero contributions, !vote stricken) DanielTom (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't care about the past nor those who opposed so far and I want to rely on what the most active users here think, but for now Kalki's way of conducting the discussion here is, alone, enough to conclude he'll be better without sysop flag. --Nemo 17:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By such remarks, I am assuming, perhaps wrongly, that you prefer craven dishonesty to frank honesty. I am willing to hear all sides of arguments, and to reserve judgment, even against those often hasty to make their own, and who seem eager to find ways to deceive others to side with them through various forms of fraud. I believe I am far more charitable to many of my adversaries than they yet can appreciate, and I truly wish no one ill, and in sum, I wish you well. So it goes... ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 17:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC) + tweaksReply[reply]
Don't rely on this user's judgement, he called someone's signature annoying. I think Nemo should learn to be kind and civil. --~~Goldenburg111 18:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I genuinely seek ways to encourage everyone to be more genuinely kind and civil — and to my mind the foremost things to respect as signs of true civility are not any particular formalities, but simple honesty and compassion, and though there can and must be some conflicts involved in many considerations, especially with those whose sincere or insincere assertions have left many people deep in poisonous forms of cynicism, doubt and denial of the worth of particular human beings, or even humanity in general, I believe humanity truly has and will make progress, despite many profound dangers and delusions which have long persisted. So it goes.… ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 18:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First I must acknowledge and recognize Kalki's contribution of vast amounts of fine quality content to Wikiquote. We are very much enriched by this monumental gift of time and effort. I also recognize that Kalki has foresworn and forsaken the practice of impersonating a multitude, albeit under protest and only on pain of being blocked when community consensus to do so was clear. It is with heavy heart that I observe other activities I regard as wholly inappropriate and unsuitable for someone in the role of an administrator. To wit:
Respect for consensus is very important for administrators, who are called upon to enforce it. One can certainly disagree with a consensus, and argue against it, and even decline to act on it. (I find myself in this position regarding several areas of consensus established at Wikiquote.) Kalki has repeatedly and extensively violated the spirit of community consensus and the letter of policy expressing it, with edits contrary to consensus and with edit warring (e.g. with respect to the Image use policy, among others).
This is not an appropriate way to express dissent, particularly for an administrator. Kalki refers to the active violation of consensus as a program of "civil disobedience". Many prominent thinkers have noted that the essence of civil disobedience lies not in simply breaking the rules, but in accepting the penalties when they are enforced. Not being granted powers of enforcement would seem the least of such penalties.
Civility is essential for those who are the de facto ambassadors of the project. Kalki's repeated denunciations of people's motives, intelligence, and moral character is more than occasional rhetorical excess, it is a consistent pattern of gross incivility. Waving the flag of freedom and justice, ascribing heinous ideologies to those with whom one disagrees, is more than off-topic digression, it is an accusation of bad faith that has, at one time or another, been leveled against practically everyone who has ever disagreed with Kalki about anything.
I am increasingly coming to the view that civility is the first and foremost competence required for participating in Wikimedia projects. Many people have wondered about reasons for the trend of declining participation and the longstanding under-representation of women. I believe a significant factor lies in fostering an environment where thick-skinned or pugnacious or very determined people feel comfortable, while gentler folk feel unwelcome. It is demonstrably the case that good contributors have been driven away by Kalki's extreme incivility – conduct that is inappropriate for any contributor and unacceptable in an administrator.
I would happily endorse Kakli if these activities were reformed, and the practices of respecting consensus and of civil discourse were demonstrated over an extended period of time. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am somewhat disappointed at your opposition, because I had hoped that the quite evident need for more people to be regularly involved here, and equipped to fight vandals was sufficient to prompt some who have been reluctant or opposed to me in the past, to be acceptive of my offers of further services now. I yet may hope that some of my more explicit addressing of these issues now might persuade you to support me.
On at least a couple of the points which you have emphasized, I would state that though I can respect MUCH of your disposition, I truly cannot respect all of it — and do not believe it is my own or any other persons obligation to do so, nor to claim to do so, for sake of such shallow forms of polite expressions as far too often pass for genuine civility.
The contended issue, regarding discussions and decisions which took place mostly on the relatively obscure page Wikiquote talk:Image use policy in 2012, and for which I am upbraided for opposing, is one which in legal terms might be deemed "unconstitutional" — it CORRUPTS the processes by which the wikis were established and indeed turns it over to those most interested in RULING, and in constraining and controlling the long standing rights and abilities of others, or even destroying their work in what prior to such policy would have been regarded as BLATANT VANDALISM.
MOST of the page Wikiquote:Image use policy is in rather acceptable language and measures, which I can support, but the clause which DEFIES and denigrates the long standing processes of the Wiki and PENALIZES and constrains many long standing freedoms and rights, I cannot. It is this:
"Dispute resolution: An image that is not a literal representation of the subject of the page may be removed by any editor who believes it to be inappropriate. Thereafter, it should not be re-added without first obtaining consensus on the article talk page."
Prior to that, ANY such edits were subject to fair and proper argument from both sides, and permitted amicable agreements or disagreements to be resolved — but this clearly provides the means for the most dull or uninformed people to remove wholesale ANYTHING and EVERYTHING they do not immediately understand as relevant, or obstinately refuse to concede as relevant — and prevents others from responding to such acts with anything but docile deference or appeal to those who in general seem most inclined to constrain and control things — and NOT genuinely permit maximal free use and development by all.
I wish to emphasize that from my perspectives I can honestly assert that I see it as quite simply an EXTREMELY corrupt and corruptive sanctioning of some forms of vicious and even malicious vandalism, with little due respect to the rights and abilities of all for both good and bad, and making the processes of CONTRIBUTING to the wiki and PRESERVING presentations of ideas and quotes much more complicated and constrained and DEPENDENT upon the express approval of those who are most AVID to censor and censure others than it had ever before been, in all my years of working here. I believe that such rather absolutist measures discourage and drive away contributors far more than honestly harsh expressions of genuine opinions or facts ever have.
This was used by a very few as a sanctioning of MASSIVE removal of material from many pages, by which MANY profound and important ideas had been highlighted and emphasized, often for many YEARS, in ways which had indeed won praises from people not regularly involved here for their content, and left them relatively blank, dull and uninteresting, especially to many who might be relatively unfamiliar with the subjects of the page.
IF that single clause were struck, which I firmly believe to be IMPROPER, and overly empowers those most hostile to the presentation and growth of diverse ideas in quite unjust and unethical ways, and which I hope it will be, by people involved in careful reflection on matters, I would have no problem at all supporting such policies as are generally respectful and advisory, and do not mandate a greater deference to one side of what should be a fair dispute, and improperly empower those most inclined to suppressions and censorship.
I believe that I can and do respect all people whom I encounter, far more than I can clearly say or make clear to most, despite some of them often falling into many paths of what I consider either minor or major errors and injustice, because many are trained and conditioned to regard such paths as inevitable and sometimes even proper and admirable. I have not thus been indoctrinated, and prefer to emphasize the importance of maintaining both liberties and diversities — and that when freedoms of the incidentally privileged, powerful and most ambitious to IMPOSE such narrowing of options and preferences of others as accords well with their own is touted AS IF it were proper policy amidst any form of free society, I must indeed reject it.
Plainly believing that this clause is a corrupt, corruptive, and figuratively "unconstitutional" measure, I do not consider such votes by a few, for the preferences and convenience of a few, who I believe have often relied upon the apathy or ignorance of others, to actually and fairly constitute any form of binding resolution which either I or others must seek to mandate or comply with. Perhaps I am indeed wrong, but I believe that the consensus of Humanity is with me in my upholding of such principles.
In regard to another point made, I would assert that I am a person who has recognized since I was a young child that a "a consistent pattern of gross incivility" is something which often hides itself very skillfully behind pleasant words and customary niceties, which often misleads many from observing the true nature of both deeds and inclinations — and I firmly hold that honesty and GENUINE compassion which accepts DIVERSITY, and not merely CONFORMITY is the path to highest and greatest forms of profound and genuine civility. I do NOT seek to constrain and stifle debate or diversity in anything like the extremes of regularity others have, even some who have long been admins here. I believe some have at times genuinely misused both their status and ability, but I do NOT wish to emphasize such past errors overmuch, nor needlessly, because I believe that MOST of the admins here and in most of the Wikimedia projects are genuinely honorable and generally fair people.
Others have sometimes rebuked me for bringing up such hallowed ideas as they might otherwise belittle or subvert without them being clearly named, and I can tolerate and accept such forms of rebuke, because I believe that I am on the proper side in defending them. That is about all I have time to say right now, and I hope that you and others will fairly consider all that is involved in current and past disputes, and honor the principles of both Justice and Liberty with sufficient respect as to promote a genuine growth of Unity amidst Diversity, through humble and compassionate respect for it. Blessings to all. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 17:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC) + tweaksReply[reply]
Oppose - per Cirt. Also, please use italics, not boldface or all-caps, for emphasis. Tucoxn (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the record, as of now User:Tucoxn has a total of 3 edits to Wikiquote (his comment here being one of them). ~ DanielTom (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I simply believe that some of the masquerades of corruption and deceits in forms of procedures and policies that mock genuine decency and justice that have far too long been at play here, become somewhat more apparent and discernible to others who might otherwise not become aware of them. Though mildly irritating and constraining, this is certainly not an entirely bad thing for those who have faith in the strength and integrity of humanity as a whole — and their capacities to eventually and eternally discern many forms of truth that have long been obscured or denied. Blessings to all. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 11:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC) + tweaksReply[reply]
Oppose - my opinion is Wikiquote become not better with Kalki. Rather the opposite. Gives better candidates.--Richard Reinhardt (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Though I am somewhat disappointed in the persistence of such views among some, I certainly respect your right to make your opinions known here and everywhere permissible, but I am obviously not someone who tries to curry the favor of those interested in suppressing the opinions of others, or any of the most vitally important of various forms of truth. IF I were such a shallow-minded person I would not be so adamantly opposed to many of the obvious or camouflaged forms of censorship and suppressions of information and ideas which many people often engage in. Blessings to all. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 13:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
* Neutral - I have done research on you. You had more than 200 sockpuppets that were used, and considered inappropriate. I really don't know if I should support or oppose. Convince me to support or oppose and I'll make my final decision. --~~Goldenburg111 22:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not deny that there were some who deemed them "inappropriate" on rather slim evidence from a very few edits I had made many years before the contentions about this matter. I have always maintained that there was never any malicious or improper intent in any of these — and many of the issues involved with that whole controversy, and the extreme distortions that have been made about my actual activities have never really been thoroughly exposed, as much as I am I inclined to do within the next year. I did commit myself to using only the Kalki account, here and at Wikipedia, and I believe that I have not used any other accounts on ANY Wikimedia project since making the first of those commitments some years ago. I understand your misgivings, and will attempt to address them so much as you wish — but I have to be leaving soon, and I am just going to stick around a few minutes more. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 22:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC) + tweaksReply[reply]
I do not know exactly what you or others might wish, but my user pages and archives provide extensive documentation of my activities here — and I am NOT prone to edit out criticism of myself and provide ONLY access to such views as I prefer, as some are. I intend to do at least a little work on my User:Kalki/Chronology page in coming days and weeks, and using that and a few other pages of exposition, I this year expect to make extensive and accurate indications of much that has gone on here and elsewhere for many years. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 17:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC) + tweaksReply[reply]
A far more extensive and balanced exposition of these events which Cirt has persistently labelled "socking" (despite the admonitions and objections to that term as applied to me, by others than myself), has been created on my own user pages — where I have attempted to provide all I could of the assessments of others, as well as my own, so that I could provide some responses to Cirts quite REGULAR inclination to link to pages which present ONLY his views or the views of those who are largely in agreement with his.
23 May 2011Cirt (talk · contributions) creates a protected page 'User:Kalki/Restrictions" in my user space which I am unable to edit, where he makes a summary in which he characterizes some events of the past in the most absurdly stern and presumptive of ways, and MAKES UP some entirely NEW impositions or threats upon me, regarding any future events — AS IF these punitive fantasies had been endorsed by community sanctions. Beyond being contemptible, I consider it QUITE laughable, and intend to eventually provide more elaborate indications as to why.
Perhaps so that they can seem nothing but likable to people with relatively poor observation skills or naturally casual interests or disinterest in the generally detrimental disputes of others, some people like to entirely remove any traces or records of criticism of themselves, so much as they can, and even seek to FORBID it in obnoxiously dictatorial ways, while they remain quite wanton in their own will to engage primarily in criticism of such people they believe are vulnerable to their extremely biased distortions of fact such as indicate ONLY what they want to indicate, and to the extent they can get away with doing so, because the ignorance, confusion and apathy of many, leave others with little or no means of effectively defending themselves. I am not inclined to be harsh to people for their honesty or their differences from myself, but I do not deny that I am sometimes inclined to be harshly truthful in ways that are irritating and debilitating to many forms of apparent or obvious dishonesty and malice.
Though I believe MOST editors and most admins are sincerely dedicated to serving the Wikimedia projects, in response to many forms of quite apparent and pernicious malice which I have long observed, in a very few, I intend to gradually compose a far more extensive chronology of MANY events here and elsewhere, with many references to pertinent pages on this wiki and others, which I believe will expose the extent of the distortions and malice I sincerely believe have been quite comfortably and smugly at work here for many years.
Even as a very young child I noted that there are those who are eager to smile and smile in friendly appearing ways, and remain villains, while they pander to presumptions and prejudices, and distort truths in whatever ways the unfamiliarity and confusions of others permit them to, so as to keep them confused enough to commit to their side in disputes, and even to trust their advice to entirely ignore or dismiss any arguments or facts which are not to their own liking.
When people show that they are capable of sincere manifestations of benevolence and grace, as I believe most people who are not profoundly bigoted in various ways can be, I am always willing to appreciate the development of sincere alliances and friendships when I can find them, and unlike some who are prone to be cowardly and mendacious, I do not seek to silence or deprive people of their inclinations to indicate sincere hostility, and to state whatever reasons or opinions prompt them towards it, so long as they feel it. As always, I am willing to value your comments and character for all that I honestly perceive them to be worth within the light of Reality. So it goes… ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 04:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC) + tweaksReply[reply]
Reply: The behavior exemplified by Kalki, above here on this page, making comments with no evidence, etc, admitting to acting with malice, are reasons why he is unfit to be an administrator. -- Cirt (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cirt's comment is so atrociously and boldly dishonest as to indeed be somewhat funny. The behavior regularly exemplified by Cirt, making dishonest and highly distortive statements which are sometimes quite plainly outright lies show his unfitness as a rational human being. But one must forgive the ignorant and confused, even though one must often resolve to fight against the ignorance and confusion they seek to impose on others. So it goes... ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 04:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC) + tweakReply[reply]
Comment - I fully concur with ya Cirt. This Kalki or watever, is currently making allegations that i am a sock, even if he or she were right, it makes hypocrisy a lot more prevalent. But i am not, a simple CheckUser will determine that. however I wouldnt be surprised if it found out that Kalki is behind the recent sock attacks. This person, being a former disrupter, does nothing more than cause trouble. Kalki disgusts me.Malarka 9:10 AM, 01/18/14
(Note: This mindless vandal, who followed the same edit pattern as the other Dragon Ball vandals and sockpuppets, has been blocked.) DanielTom (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - Cirt has advertised this request on m:Talk:CheckUser_policy. I would tend to agree with Nemo bis, that Kalki's conduct on this RfA alone shows that they shouldn't be granted the sysop bit, but I won't vote since I am not active on this site. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course Cirt is eager to advertise his impressions of things anywhere he believes his long standing deceptions and apparent malice might be ignored through whatever slanted views he can give. I have not even visited the site as yet, but I believe I have a good idea what kind of assessment he likely presents of things. For my own perspectives on matters, User:Kalki/Chronology is probably the best place for a summary of some of mine, with links for further explorations for the interested. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 18:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have just added a comment there, and again thank you for yours here, though you seem to be under the impression that I am undeserving of the honor of once again serving as an admin here. I hope that time and observations will convince you otherwise. But truly, I did have to laugh, despite it being so pathetic and typical — the headline read "Sockmaster Kalki going for sysop at en.wikiquote" — that clearly sums up much of his constant refrain and argument for years now, despite early and strong objections by those most familiar with the situations against using such prejudicial and deceptive terms for my use of various accounts. I can understand that those who know little of the history of events, and are regularly frustrated by the socks of genuine vandals and frauds can react to such words. I wish you well, and again thank you. Blessings to all. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 18:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC) + tweaksReply[reply]
Cirt has engaged in rather obvious and I believe probably "against-policy" cross-wiki canvassing of votes against me here, at Wikipedia as well as at Meta. In both places they were rapidly rebuked as improper. I have begun a page User:Kalki/SOS to document some of the abuses and defamations of various kinds which I have encountered in the past, and will probably add to it later, but I must be leaving soon. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 21:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC) + tweaksReply[reply]
Comment since I'm having a look at this page after locking some of the sockpuppets above I'd like to explicitly endorse Ajraddatz's words. Also I honestly cannot understand at all the huge amount of time wasted to create and maintain 2 hundreds of accounts. Nor I can understand the obstinacy in promoting a behaviour which caused, anyway, lots of distrust among other users. To me it's like being a naturist in Greenland saying "I'm freeeeeeee". --Vituzzu (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aren't you the guy who blocked DanielTom without a warning. --~~Goldenburg111 21:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Careful Golden, he might block you ;-). Seriously though, I'm not sure what a steward like Vituzzu is doing in a discussion like this, when has only has 3 article edits on Wikiquote (all of them being reverts). These canvassed votes and "comments" are getting ridiculous. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes he wasted other people's time with that old sock debacle (It should be of little concern to others how he chooses to waste *his* time), but was there really ever any malicious intent? I don't see any mens rea there, in his operation of multiple accounts; I think it as a freak social experiment rather than the garden- variety sockpuppeteering. jni (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually making a social experiment at Wikipedia's expense is even worse. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am certainly not here stating that such was actually my own aim, but I wish to at least confront some rather shallow assumptions which are evident to me. There are many people making social and anti-social experiments of various sorts in Wikimedia projects constantly — the wikimedia projects in many ways ARE a social experiment, and for the most part a highly honorable and successful one. Welcoming a diversity of ideas and influences in honest and fair interactions was one of the foundational principles of these — and yet from the start their were factions of people seeking more exclusionary constraints by which to develop control and command over others, and while not as yet dominant, many of these factions have grown more prominent and disruptive of the more general principles and purposes of the Wikimedia projects. I assert that it is they, not those who uphold a more rigorous commitment to Justice and Liberty who are disruptive of the Unity and Progress of the endeavors as a whole. I assert such people should be forgiven for their errors — but not supported in their actually divisive or dictatorial ways, and I am NOT going to beg forgiveness of them for not joining in some of their aims and efforts. As ever, I am willing to join others in reasonable and fair procedures and processes — but NOT support the development or institution of patently unfair and extremely biased mandates of any sort. So it goes.… ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 13:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC) + tweaksReply[reply]
Sorry for being coarse but let justice, liberty at their real place, they are too much important to be put at stake when dealing with accounts, trolls, IPs and userrights. I'm definitely practical: our sole scope is creating a free sum of human knowledge, social experiments are out of our scope and, moreover, they are quite expensive. Find me a social experiment at Wikipedia's expense and then you'll see me doing all my best to stop it.
I always assume to be talking to reasonable people (maybe acting in an unreasonable way), so I'm still wondering why an established user did create 200 accounts and still considers it legit, regardless of the bewilderment and distrust caused.
I wish to make clear the accounts are rather moot points at this point. I have committed myself firmly to not using them without seeking approval to do so, and I am not sure I will ever bother to even do that. I probably will make much more clear over the course of this year, some of the reasons why I created them. As of now, I simply assert I never deliberately misused any account, and never intended to, and if there were a VERY few incidents, dating back to my first years here that were SUSPICIOUS or seemed improper, these have been used by others to justify many periods of quite hysterical hostility to me and attempts at deprecation my abilities to serve others in quite mundane ways. I would note that I can agree that in many "official" ways "social experiments are out of our scope and, moreover, they are quite expensive" — yet I would assert that to quote a person, to even speak a word they might not clearly understand is a "social experiment." In such broad sense social experiments cannot be avoided by any living being — and the more considerate we are in our forms of our necessary applications and experimentations, of either acceptive, suppressive or destructive abilities and behaviors, the greater harmony and stability can be achieved. To think that one's own understanding should, or even can be the absolute norm, and be imposed on others is always a deficient form of awareness — and yet is an all too common trait. I have been aware of that since early childhood — and always sought to find many ways of directly confronting many deficient forms of awareness in diverse ways — for reasons and in ways which I knew others often would not easily understand in their own divergent world-views. To the extent I can, I simply like keeping things safe for diversity, and am genuinely alarmed when trends of others counter that. I do not propose to explain myself fully in a few words now, but I hope that review of my behavior, and any observations of my future behavior can be helpful in many ways to others. I truly seek to be of service to others proper rights and their abilities to develop aware and appreciative attitudes to many things, and I wish to pay no homage to any needless and detrimentally suppressive or oppressive tendencies. I know my own perspectives are peculiar, and I do not expect many of them to be understood, yet I hope that with time they can be recognized as for the most part harmless, and in some ways helpful, sometimes in unexpected ways. Blessings ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.