Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Archives/2011

Here you can read past requests for adminship. See Wikiquote:Administrators for what this entails and for a list of current admins. Curernt requests and on-going discussion are on Wikiquote:requests for adminship. The current list of administrators are available.

This page archives requests in 2011.

Requests and nominations for adminship

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The result was: Application withdrawn. ~ Ningauble 15:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Theo10011 (talk · contributions)

Hi, I am an active admin from Meta and a 'crat from strategy wiki, I also have reviewer and rollbacker rights on en.wp. I only visited wikiquote before this to look for quotes, lately I noticed a lot of anon vandalism here. I tagged a few pages for speedy and read through wikiquote policy. I would like to help out here if I can, I am familiar with sysop tools and have a good track record. Theo10011 18:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Vote ends: 22 April, 2011.

---

• Oppose for now, but feel free to re-apply after gaining more experience at Wikiquote. I think it takes a few months, and several hundred or a thousand edits, both editing articles and participating in community affairs, to become familiar with the written and unwritten rules and practices of the local community. ~ Ningauble 15:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ningauble and I agree, I think I might have been a bit premature with my request. I would like to withdraw it, and get familiar with Wikiquote and the community here first. Can someone please close my request and mark it as withdrawn. Thanks. Theo10011 19:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

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.

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: Request declined. ~ UDScott 12:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Kalki (talk · contributions)

A developing list of many of my contributions to this project and others is available here : User:Kalki/index

I have considered making this request for some time, as I believe that the burdens upon me and this wiki in having my adminship removed in the past were entirely unjust and irrationally motivated, but prompted by much recent vandalism, and a few other considerations of the needs of this wiki and a few others, I am now making it.

I assert that despite the implied assumptions of a few people in the past, including at least a couple who I consider to have officiously misused and abused their own status in at least a few deplorable ways, I had NEVER abused my admin abilities in all the years which I held them. The contentions which resulted in my admin abilities being removed were the result of personality and opinion conflicts with others I considered to be in many deceitful and deluded ways improperly usurping the rights of individuals and the community in general.

I also make this request because I have a desire to regain simple editing rights on other wikimedia wikis where I contend I was IMPROPERLY stripped of them by what I affirm were slanderous and malicious accusations by Cirt some months ago. I have not sought to contend with those actions up to this point, because I have had little or no need of editing these, though I have been prevented from doing much that would have been of at least minor contributive nature, as I thought it appropriate to regain my adminship here before I attempted to have editing rights elsewhere restored to me, not so impeded by the delusion that because Cirt was an admin, and I no longer am, that the admin Cirt was probably acting properly, honestly and morally, and I was not.

I have long noted some people's remarkable and deplorable ability to ignore many things of primary importance as they focus upon relatively minor ones which irritate them and defy their limited abilities to pigeonhole many aspects of Reality and many people's attitudes and lives into neat little simplistic categories which they are fond of creating or insisting upon.

I have been restrained under duress and threats which extorted an affirmation from me that I would not indulge in what, so far as I know, REMAINS the right of users on this wiki and other wikimedia wikis to edit under multiple names here. I have remained committed to this resolve extracted from me, even though I sincerely hold this to in many ways have been immorally imposed by a clique with a large faction of would be-fascists who probably still lack the discernment that this is precisely the form of political strategy which they were indulging in, by attacking my own and everyone else's right to do things in ways that are not entirely explained or explicable to their very limited sensibilities.

I do not consider it my own or anyone else's obligation to report to them or anyone else all the reasons I have for doing all the things I might be inclined to do, here or elsewhere, including the use of multiple names. I believe that if something is NOT forbidden, and not clearly immoral by any standards of logical integrity, it should generally be permitted. And if anyone is to be peculiarly restrained from such rights as others have, there should be clear and moral reasons for doing so. I continue to assert that this is not the case in this situation, and believe that it must have taken a great deal of effort by a very few individuals to find a very few incidents, among my tens of thousands of edits, using hundreds of usernames, which could be easily construed as being questionable, and by which they could play upon the easy assumption that if I am doing something in a non-publicity seeking way, then I "must be" intent on something clearly malicious and destructive.

I repeat the affirmation that I have NEVER had malicious or immoral intentions in my creation of any of these usernames, or in any of my activity here, and the accusations that I had clearly improper intentions or aims in ANY of my uses of ANY them at any time is something I assert has NOT been proven in any way, shape or form — and CANNOT actually be done — because it is not the case.

I fully recognize that enough doubt was created by the contentions that arose that at least some people I had hoped would be less indifferent to the injustice of things did not support my retention of adminship privileges. That might indeed still be the case, though I actually have proven my ability and will to be constrained and limited in ways I consider to have been immorally imposed by ignorant and confused individuals, without undue resentment or malice to my accusers and abusers, when I know that there are always better choices available to those who can be forgiving and maintain a transcendent tolerance of many forms of extreme stupidity.

That I have acquired many names by which I sought to remain relatively obscure, and contribute in innocuous and beneficial ways, seems to be something unimaginable and deplorable to many, who have far different inclinations and sensibilities than myself. I am not one of those I consider to be addicted to the acquisition of unneeded forms of status or privileges which imply some forms of command or control over others, which they quite often abuse in subtle or overt ways. I do not intend to now or ever seek bureaucrat status here again — as there is no longer any NEED for me to have such, and as I generally disdained the title, having extreme contempt towards most authoritarian and many bureaucratic assumptions — whereby bureaucrats often presume they have the right to be dictators and extorters of improper compliance and subjugation of those over whom they believe they have authority. I have not taken great pains to hide that fact, and have never denied it.

This request is rather sudden and spontaneous, and there are many more reasons I could give for why I believe admin rights should be restored to me — but I await the responses of others. I could craft my case more extensively and formally, and will do so if it is required of me, but if people grow weary of meticulous exposition of many clearly or unclearly related causes and reasons for things such as I often indulge in when I am called upon to speak in words, I myself am weary of doing so as well — and would prefer not to do so.

Candidate's acceptance: Self-nominated. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 12:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Vote ends: 24 April 2011

---

• Support. Despite the fact that there remain aspects of Kalki's past behavior that I disagree with, I firmly believe that Kalki can provide more benefit (and I believe the benefit is significant) to the project than harm should admin capabilities be returned. As further discussion develops, I may add to my reasons for supporting, but for now, suffice it to say that I believe that, even in ways that most have not agreed with (including myself), Kalki acts with the best interests of the project in mind. I can say for certain that much of the recent spate of vandalism would have been handled in a much quicker fashion if Kalki were able to address it with the admin tools. For this and other reasons I support Kalki returning to admin status. ~ UDScott 15:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While I still believe that Kalki could have provided a good deal of benefit to the project, Kalki's continued negative behavior is not in keeping with what I would expect of someone acting as an administrator and ambassador of the project. If there had been some measure of an appearance of a willingness to discuss matters in a calm and rational manner and a willingness to work with others without denigrating their work or motives (which was my hope when I first cast my support vote), then I would have gladly left my original vote. Sadly, this is not the case, and I do not feel I can continue to support Kalki as an admin. ~ UDScott 14:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Though it seems there is not any strong likelihood of this nomination succeeding at this point, your defection as a fellow earnest WORKER here, saddens me more than the comments of those who often have done little more here than judge and dictate their opinions and views. I am not sure to what you are referring to as negative behavior. IF you are referring to my obvious ire at being suddenly blocked a few hours ago, of that I am definitely guilty. But if there is anything available to an admin more NEGATIVE to Justice respectful of Liberty, Unity based on Truth, and Liberty respectful of Justice than removing the right to edit of someone who disagrees with you and points out facts and honest opinions, I do NOT know what it is — and that is certainly NOT such behavior as I have ever indulged in. I do NOT consider those who DO as fellow allies to any worthy endeavor in any reliable or trustworthy way. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 15:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that this probably came as a surprise to you, but please do not misunderstand my comments. I still support your continued work on this site (and as I stated, I believe much of your work has been extremely beneficial to the project), but I just could not reconcile many of your comments with the position of admin. It's more a sense of image for how I believe an admin should behave. I realize that you have been under attack and are reacting to that, but I have tried on numerous occasions to have constructive dialogue with you on a number of topics and have been frustrated in this effort. I believe that I have not acted in the past in any manner that would harm you, but have merely attempted to engage in various discussions. As to the behavior of others, I will not at this point comment on it, as the scope of this discussion is limited to possibility of you regaining adminship. ~ UDScott 17:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support, without reservation. Weighing all the pros and cons, Wikiquote with Kalki as an admin is a better place than Wikiquote without Kalki as an admin. BD2412 T 16:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral: I've read the arguments, and I'm unable to decided either way . Theo10011 20:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose As I recall I was the person who first suggested the option of restricting Kalki to editing with one Username. I made this suggestion not because anything that Cirt wrote, it was just that the situation was very out of hand at the time so I decided to try to lend an unbiased outside voice. When I looked carefully at the edits of numerous socks, I found he was using more then one sock to take part in a single conversation. I admit this never happened in a !vote, or anything of that nature. But manipulating people in this way, is to my mind this is "clearly immoral by any [standard] of logical integrity". But what really bothers me most is the language of the article above. When I read it I cannot help but feel I am being told I am part of an immoral clique of would-be-facists, which couldn't be farther from the truth. In general it reads more as more of an attack against the people who took his tools and restricted his account use then as a request for tools. How ever good Kalki may be about vandalism patrol, and content creation... his statement above just doesn't give me hope that he would have the cool head frequently needed to be an administrator when conflicts between editors arise. Thenub314 17:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to note that I served as relatively cool head in many disputes in the many years I served as admin — and many of my harsher aspects were not so strongly exhibited until after what I consider to have been an actually betrayal of responsibilities and discretion, in the sudden and severely disruptive disclosure of many things in order to strip me of adminship — rather than what would have been a far cooler and measured response of actually moving to a public debate of the issue in dispute, without the implicit accusations and assumptions that I had actually clearly violated policy — which I continue to maintain was not the case — DESPITE the relatively appearances of such that could be construed from a very FEW incidents which for the most part happened MANY years ago.

After I lost adminship because of suspicions aroused, this was followed by the improper moves a few months later to begin blocking my accounts AS IF the issue of the use of open use of my exposed or unexposed usernames had been an issue voted on and decided against with my loss of adminship after losing the votes of confidence — when it actually CLEARLY had NOT BEEN. I actually would have engaged in a much broader range of arguments, far more intensely, and presented far more facts, HAD that actually been the case — nor do I believe Wikimedia policies permitting multiple accounts to be used in non abusive ways could validly be negated without a wikimedia wide referendum on policies towards multiple accounts, which there are MANY legitimate reasons to permit. Further outrages occurred a few months ago when I was summarily blocked after simply entering into an editing dispute with Cirt who seemed quite proud in gloating at the damages he did to my editing abilities and reputations with slurs and slanders spread across many of the wikimedia projects after blocking my primary accounts and IPs. Ningauble has referred to CIrts behavior as "over the top", which I believe is definitely and understatement — however amusing it might seem, I simply hold it to be primarily disgraceful and contemptible — but Cirt, so far as I am aware still holds adminship, and I am NOT calling for his loss of it — though the destructive and vandalistic impulses he clearly exhibited are something I despise. Throughout all these months of what I consider to be genuine abuses by others and the frustrations they entailed, I have remained a sincerely devoted contributor to this project.

I have never claimed or pretended that there is much I do not disclose to others — and this makes me seem suspicious and unreliable to those not willing to be so honest and frank, and who seem to respect abject conformity far more than resolute integrity. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 22:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC) + tweaks 2011·04·27

I would like to add that in response to the assertion "I found he was using more then one sock to take part in a single conversation." I clearly admitted there were times where this occured, usually inadvertently and accidentally, on subjects of little or no major significance or contention, and more often than not, on the same discussion page, but months or years apart. To PRESUME or IMPLY that this was part of a campaign of deliberate and malicious deception I contend is LUDICROUS. One of the worse incidents of such a nature was an ACCIDENT, made with the account Moby (talk · contributions) and though I eventually had forgotten about it when I began using the name again, it had been one of the reasons why I dropped using that name for quite a while. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 05:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral. I feel a certain sense of responsibility to express an opinion about this application, but I have little sense of certainty about the best course of action. At larger projects the time is long past when administrators were merely janitors, and they are now expected to comport themselves as community leaders in matters that it do not directly entail the use of sysop tools. If there were more active admins to carry the load I would unhesitatingly oppose due to inappropriately bellicose conduct that has, I believe, adversely impacted the recruitment and retention of constructive contributors. I am neutral on whether the contingency of Wikiquote's small and declining contributor base is a reason to waive, or reason to emphasize, concerns about conduct unbecoming a community leader. ~ Ningauble 18:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Maybe we can do something creative here. How about if we find some way to give Kalki the tools but not the "community leadership" title? BD2412 T 19:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I concede that I can at times seem bellicose — but I also must assert that this is hardly my primary demeanor or disposition, no matter what might occur in response to some of the matters to which I strongly object. There is with the wikimedia projects, as there are with most people, far more that I respect than there are things which I object to. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 22:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment in opposition - I'm not sure what suffrage requirements exist for RfA on Wikiquote, but I am definitely not a contributor to this project, so I'm not calling this an "oppose", though that's what my feeling is. Administrators, as the most visible Project leadership on most projects, are role-models. That's a statement of fact, not of principle. They are expected, almost universally, to be people whose behavior is more right than wrong, and clearly so. They're allowed errors in judgment and bad days -- but not continuing patterns of bad decisions. I find the deception involved in sock-puppeting on this scale to be abhorrent, and wonder whether this community believes they could trust Kalki. I certainly couldn't, not after a pattern of disruption and deception. In my capacity as a volunteer, not as an employee action. Philippe 19:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You certainly have every right to your views, and would have every right to "consider the deception involved in sock-puppeting on this scale to be abhorrent" had I actually done been using ANY of these accounts, or ANY others, in clearly and deliberately abhorrent ways. There are disputes as to my intentions and the levels of impropriety of some of my actions, whether deliberate or not, but I contend there is still much to be disputed, and I have actually thus far refrained from presenting much evidence which I could have in rebuttal to some claims against me. I might present some of it in the months ahead, simply to clear up some rather significant issues. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 22:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as a neutral person who closely evaluated Kalki's use of multiple user names on this project and others. The use of this many accounts was disruptive and had to be evaluated by checkusers and other people experienced with evaluation socking. And I stand by my assertion that the accounts were used in a deceptive manner. Additionally, I think that the self nomination statement is much too hostile towards the people who waded into this situation in an attempt to sort out Kalki's use of multiple accounts. I do not feel comfortable giving Kalki the tools to block and delete because it requires good communication skills in order to properly discuss the use of the tools with other members of the community. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments: I would like to point out with genuine amusement that "Oppose as a neutral person" is an oxymoronic statement, somewhat indicative of the levels of rational cohesion that have attended the disputes about my use of various usernames and accusations of my misuse of them from the very start. I acknowledge suspicions and hostilities regarding my activities remain prominent with some, and that every person has the right to comment and vote in accord with their levels of awareness, ignorance and confusion about all things which they can or cannot address with words.

I do NOT seek to deny that many of the views of my detractors are apparently valid, based upon very limited and in some ways very dubious or misleading information, and thus their assessments and conclusions can probably seem correct, even though I do not believe they are entirely so, in many regards, nor correct at all in some regards — so I do not wish to impugn all their motives, and believe many are generally sincere in their belief that they are entirely right in their contentions and I am contemptibly wrong or deceptive.

Though I am very well aware that not all those who have commented negatively against me can actually be aware of all which has occurred, nor for what reasons I have done many things I have done, that the most strong-seeming of the evidence against me involve what I consider truly minor incidents and accidents that happened years ago, and that some seem very satisfied that what little they might know of me and my actions seems sufficient of condemn me as unworthy of trust, I will repeat a recurring contention on my part, and state this very bluntly: In ALL the names I have ever used, whether I have acknowledged them or not, whether they have been detected by others or not, I have always endeavored to be truthful, though not always entirely open about many things, and NEVER at ANY point engaged in malicious deceit, nor aimed to perpetrate any fraudulent claim against the actual rights or welfare of ANYONE. I also assert that I have NEVER sought to create anything approaching the levels of deceptions or deceits or the deliberate generation of personally and socially detrimental delusions such as I believe at least a few of the most active and obsessive of my detractors probably have. I fully recognize that this might seem an extraordinary claim, to those with but cursory, limited or extremely biased awareness of the situation, but I will stand by it, and in coming months, whatever the outcome of this particular vote may be, I shall endeavor to gradually and publicly provide much of the evidence I can present to support this assertion. I had not prepared for this nomination so fully as I might have, and it seems that I will probably have to do many weeks or months of gradually gathering up information before I myself submit one again.

I consider this very unfortunate for many reasons: as I had mentioned above, the slanders and distortions and what I consider an extreme abuse of admin tools which Cirt used to initiate blocks of even my primary Kalki account here and at other wikimedia projects after an editing dispute with me months ago leaves me unable to upload many useful and relevant things to the commons, or to even edit Wikipedia for minor updates or corrections to pages at this point. I have NOT attempted to address this issue elsewhere because many things were of much greater priority in my lists of concerns, and I have recognized that if I cannot convince the small community of people attending to this project of my worthiness as an admin, and the unworthiness of some assumptions which have occurred against me here, I find it unlikely I can provide sufficient rebuttal of the charges used to block me elsewhere.

I repeat that despite what I consider truly reprehensible behavior, whereby I REMAIN blocked on other projects without LEGITIMATE reasons, declaring me a "cross-wiki abuser of accounts", secure that such would be a hard charge for me to contest, I am NOT calling for the desysoping of Cirt ― but I hold it that if anyone involved in this series of disputes which have occured has ever clearly misused their adminship status, and the administrative tools it has been Cirt and not I.

I can only take a light satisfaction that a couple of those most familiar with my activities and actually most active on this project are those most willing to accept me as an admin who had never abused those tools ― while some who remain among those most hostile or indifferent seem most prone to think of adminship primarily as a badge of prestige and status, to be granted only to those who most clearly conform with their own expectation and aims.

I assert that what I consider to be the actual abuse of admin status by Cirt is something others seem far more willing to overlook, than being someone who has suffered loss of status and privileges in defiance and denunciation of what I truly consider to be actual and clear abuses of official status and violation of official duties as I believe Cirt or others have at some times to some extent engaged in.

I want to make as clear as possible that though I have been honestly irritated by much of the confusion and error evident in the actions and decisions of others, and at times in my own, I am NOT primarily or implacably bitter about many of the mistakes of judgment made, though I continue to be hostile and passionately opposed to many forms of the will to promote what I consider very improper and wrongful determinations.

I am certainly NOT hostile to the welfare of even those who have been many of the most persistent and irritating opponents to much of the good I have truly wished to do, here and elsewhere, for the sake of others, and all that I hold truly best and admirable in humankind.

I fully realize and accept that I will probably never be able to totally eliminate or disprove some of the accusations or suspicions which stand against me — but I can and will provide more actual and verifiable information about myself, my aims, and my experiences in the months to come, so that more people can put some of the more ludicrous assumptions into a far larger context, and I do believe that the extreme errors of some presumptions, not immediately or innately obvious to most people at this point in time, will gradually become very evident.

If it remains possible, I still would like to receive more support and be able to resume more useful activity here, which had diminished greatly at times, because inability to be effective against some forms of vandalism reduced my inclination to even monitor things here, but even if this does not occur, I thank those who have supported me — and whatever my sincere contentions with those who oppose me, I sincerely wish them well also. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 22:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support: Actual strengths far outweigh any "perceived" weaknesses, dare I say, by a very large amount. This user has always been of help and once you work with him; a great inspiration. As a user stated above, Wikiquote with user Kalki as an admin is much better then Wikiquote without Kalki as an admin.--Oracleofottawa 23:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: We might want either amend the displayed voting deadline or close the discussion one way or another. But as it stands some people who show up may not comment because they think the deadline as passed. Thenub314 03:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I support amending or extending the vote deadline. It is not uncommon for votes to take several weeks to be fully fleshed out on Wikiquote. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I, knowing the relatively slow pace of many activities here, especially in the last couple of years, of course also support extending this, but recognize it should not go on indefinitely, and await an admin to tweak the page to have a closing date later in this month, perhaps the 17th, or perhaps even extended to the end of the month. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 17:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I also would like to note one more reason I would like to have admin tools back, other than greater effectiveness against vandalism, which is the large number of older pages which I regularly am reminded of, which have been deleted because of lack of sourced quotes, which I would like to gradually restore by sourcing some of the quotes on the deleted pages, rather than having to start over from entirely from scratch. There are probably at least dozens of such pages I could work on restoring and developing, and the sooner the better. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 17:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Bring back lost pages doesn't precisely require tools, you could always request undeletion of any particular page you were considering working on. Thenub314 19:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it certainly doesn't require that, but like many other things it makes many procedures far simpler and easier on me and others — and unlike some people who seem to pride themselves in being deliberate nuisances to others, of which vandals and trolls here have NOT been the most extreme examples available, I generally have gone about my business here NOT seeking to be a bother to other people who are not clearly violating clearly established rules. There have arisen some personality and perception conflicts in the past where I have not been willing to bow down to the presumptive demands of a few people who I knew did NOT have sufficiently warranted authority to issue such commands or demands as they, in their very limited understanding of many matters, have at times presumed it their right, or even their duty to issue, or perhaps, even at times merely because they believed they had sufficient power or support of their particular preferences to actually disregard so trivial-seeming thing as thing as due process of proper procedures that might not accord with their wishes. Here and elsewhere, I have been willing to submit to such, to extremes I am only beginning to indicate the burdens of, and foregone making clear as possible the extreme violations of such on the parts of others that I am very acutely aware of — simply because there have been matters of far more urgency or importance I have had to deal with. I will here quote one of the many pages I have worked on extensively on this site, in devotion to presenting diverse and broad perspectives on many things, and rejection of the rather flippantly judgmental ways which many people exhibit against the rights and constructive or creative labors of others, that of G. K. Chesterton:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it." — The Thing (1929)

Throughout my life I have often been willing to overlook formalities in favor of increasing freedoms and fairness — but I am rarely willing to overlook them in regard to the protections of the liberties or rights of anyone — as others often feel quite comfortable in doing. All the motivations I have CANNOT be explained in a few words, nor for various reasons always readily presented at all — and I hold that those who demand that reasons for things other people do be entirely clear to them, or else absolutely forbidden, are among those who embrace the most dangerous forms of human habits and customs. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 20:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I have been someone who recognized the existence of PARADOX rather than contradiction in many ACTUAL things — but realize that many or most people can only see contradiction or even hypocrisy where the will or understandings of others defy theirs — I recognize that EVERYONE's life is FAR more rich and complex in many ways than ANY other mortal could ever KNOW — that very simple realization has guided me in various ways from the very earliest years of my life — into, and out of, and around MANY forms of conflict and confrontation. I have generally preferred to AVOID many — but KNOW I cannot avoid all — and where there must be conflicts I generally seek to act vigorously, and without lasting resentments on my part. Hiding of much admiration or hostility is sometimes warranted — but actual denial of hostilities, admiration or conflicts of expectation or will which actually exist is not my style at all. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 20:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC) + tweaks ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 23:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Let everyone do what they want when they want as long as everyone is happy all the time, and selfishness does not exist. This could go on forever, that's why your/my job/ work is to take over the system and find a way to make this message present; as soon as we are aware we are being selfish with our own instincts (which will kill us because they make us happy) this is how we can all be happy all the time and do what we want all the time and how we can turn all 'selfishness' into our own happiness and 'pleasures'. they (the pleasures) will kill us' and our happiness (what we are meant to do) has to be expressed through what you do (we shouldt have money it is selfish) therefore our work should be our happiness and we should do whatever we want when we want, without selfishness, and our work should be random acts of kindness that will Ultimatly be the key to our own knowledge and success/longevity/ we can and do live forever. I dont need anything. I am dead now recessed into the future, I dont need sex I don't need drugs I dont need Rock and roll (you may think they are evil but what makes us happy is within us and that is why I will do these things that are 'bad for my health' because I know how to live forever. I have learned not to be selfish and my heart is beating so steadily and strongly with the rythm of everything I don't want it to stop. This is happiness. I now become personal again and do the things that make me happy because they make ME happy not you and I will die eventually because of it (or will I) Here's to the future spread this message to believe in hope, I did here's what happened.---hope may9 2011 (or the future)

  This appears to be an extremely irrelevant series of remarks by IP 63.135.0.74 (talk · contributions) but I will decline to remove it myself, as some forms of logic might infer it to be sufficiently relevant to be removed only by officials acting in official capacities. So it goes.... ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 04:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I don't know if it was finally decided to extend the deadline or that I'm voting in vain; nevertheless I wish to express my support for Kalki. As BD2412 pointed out, Wikiquote with Kalki as an admin is a better place than without. I've observed Kalki cherish Wikiquote and contribute to it with utmost care in the past, always taking the time to enrich and better every contribution rather than doing the simple task of deleting a page with a single unsourced quote, which would be much easier, yet satisfy the admin duties. I'm aware of the username controversy in the past, however, Kalki has mentioned many times that s/he had her/his reasons for it which s/he can't disclose, and while using them, s/he did not make any any edit against the rules. While I do think that disclosing the reasons might have aided in accepting or not accepting the practice, I don't think ignorance of said reasons and especially lack of any destructive behavior is enough reason to condemn her/him. At the moment I trust Kalki to use the admin tools for constructive contributions and further benefit of the English Wikiquote. Chaojoker 11:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. To this date, Kalki has neglected to self-disclose all of this massive socking. He most recently was exposed as maintaining an additional twelve, yes, (12), sock accounts. He did not reveal or confirm these publicly as socks, until after the sock accounts were exposed as socks of the sockmaster account Kalki, and blocked. Here are the diffs: Alpha, Abraxas, Elven Angel, The Keeper, Nomen, Shanti, Sat, Sun Horse, Tao Jones, Uroborus, Wyrm, Herla. This is an extremely inappropriate candidacy for adminship. -- Cirt (talk) 04:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Update: Please also see User:Kalki/Restrictions, for a brief chronology and summary of existing restrictions in effect against Kalki with regards to the socking. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• You certainly have every right to cast your vote and express your opinions — what I find obnoxious about you is what appears to me to be adamant presumptions which seem to imply that other's right to do so should be severely restricted in accordance with YOUR particular tastes, will and fallacious assumptions. Further commentary on this matter can also be found at the Village pump, and in the permanent archives among my user pages: 2011 Contentions ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 10:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• The contentions which have existed between me and Cirt, and forms of contempt indicated for each other's behavior and opinions on many matters, are quite familiar to many of you. I truly have always wished to serve this project, and have never done anything to deliberately harm it or abuse whatever powers I have had. I will only state here that much of the material on my account pages which I contend Cirt has maliciously defaced, including the most recent spate of blocks which seem to be meant to imply I had broken my past agreements, which I have NOT, is preserved for scrutiny at Restorations. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 11:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

When Kalki uses wording right in his nomination statement, describing other admins as "immorally imposed by a clique with a large faction of would be-fascists" - one must realize he is an unfit candidate to be an administrator on any WMF project or website. -- Cirt (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

My response to this, is simple repetition of what I declared soon after I was blocked for mandates Cirt suddenly came up with out of thin air, as far as I am aware, and thus a bit passionately expressed with some all-caps assertions:

I CALL UPON other admins to examine Cirt's present and past conduct, and examine the atrocious and EXTREME attempts to SILENCE and defame me in the past and in the present — to REMOVE my testimony on MATTERS of EXTREME importance to me AND others from the VIllage pump — TO PREVENT ME FROM EDITING ON THIS WIKI, and indeed NOTHING OTHER than the RAW FASCISM, of a "Might makes Right" mentality EXPOSED for what it truly is.

So it goes… ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 15:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Such were my comments, when I could only respond on my talk page, because of an IMPROPER block upon me. As I am now under no such improper restrictions, I am far more inclined to be a bit less harsh, and sincerely implore others to forgive and pity Cirt for past errors of judgement. I recognize that my speaking in harsh terms can appear to be an error to many — but I consider harsh action to restrict or restrain anyone's right to express their honest opinions and to do constructive work far more harsh and improper. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 12:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this goes back to the dichotomy between admin-as-community-leader and admin-as-super-janitor. It would be useful to have Kalki blocking vandals, deleting vandalism articles, and moving drafts over new pages. I see no threat that he will abuse admin powers in the course of carrying out such activities. BD2412 T 19:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Though I respect you, BD2412, I strongly disagree with your assessment. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strong oppose for excessive problems on sockpuppets here and being blocked on English Wikipedia and Wikinews till infinity, both for abusing multiple accounts.[1]--Jusjih 13:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I repeat though I have had multiple accounts, I have NEVER deliberately abused multiple accounts ANYWHERE. That Cirt on his rampage of defamation after an edit dispute with him ACCUSED me of doing so at those places is something that resulted in those blocks — NOT any ACTIVITY which ever occurred there. IF there is any ACTIVITY in any of those places by ANY of my own actual accounts which even remotely resembles abuse I am certainly NOT aware of it. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 14:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Kalki's constant histrionics when he/she/it is challenged demonstrate that Kalki is insufficiently mature for adminship. 121a0012 13:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You also have every right to your opinions, and your choices, but I hold that my "histrionics" when PRINCIPLES I believe in are mocked, disregarded or ignored are far more truly considerate of EVERYONE's right and DUTY to express themselves honestly and fairly, to my mind, than the placating platitudes of people lacking enough passion to care about or even recognize extreme injustice when it arises, or to placidly and sedately conform with what are the most popular or powerful factions. I would much rather be unpopular at times in asserting the worth of honest and fair sentiments with candor, than popular in deference to extreme distortions or lies about the worth of the passions and wills of others. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 12:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment : I accept that this nomination is not likely to succeed, and declare that it can be closed without objection from me, whenever a bureaucrat chooses to do so. I thank EVERYONE for their consideration, even those who have opposed me for reasons I sometimes find misguided or presumptive. It has produced interesting observations for me and others to further consider, as we go about attempting to do good for others here and elsewhere in many ways — whether subtle or obvious. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 12:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

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.

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. No endorsements. ~ Ningauble 13:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Tomtomn00 (talk · contributions)

I wish to do administrator duties on this site and do all I can to improve it. I have contributions on other wikimedia projects.

Vote ends: 11/13/2011

---

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.

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: Request declined. ~ Ningauble 17:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Victorrrmz (talk · contributions)

World, I send this request to allow me to be one of the administrators, I learned a lot from the mistakes I made... ​​and I am here to support the constributions and donations. I await your response in this medium, all answers will be respected. Thank you very much.

—This unsigned comment is by Victorrrmz (talk • contribs) 01:28, 13 December 2011‎.

Candidate's acceptance:

Vote ends: 2011-12-19

---

• Oppose. Before becoming an administrator, a user should make several hundred or a thousand good quality contributions over a period of several months, both contributing to articles and participating in community affairs. This user displays no knowledge of Wikiquote's policies and procedures, and has not contributed to any Wikiquote articles (except an inappropriate one that has been deleted and userified). In short, he does not appear to discovered Wikiquote's purpose yet, and this application is as inappropriately premature as his application at Commons.

  Victor:  Please learn what this wiki is doing here, and do that; or else please go away and stop being disruptive. ~ Ningauble 17:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I edited here for over two full years before accepting a nomination for adminship, and made thousands of edits, including starting some substantial articles. I don't propose that as a benchmark, but I just can't see myself supporting a candidate who doesn't have at least six months and a thousand edits into the project, and a few good pages initiated and well underway. BD2412 T 18:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - this user is in no way prepared to be an admin. ~ UDScott 18:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

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.

Requests for checkuser

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. Per m:Checkuser#Access_to_CheckUser. — RyanCross (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

BD2412 (talk · contributions)

I am nominating myself, BD2412, as a candidate for checkuser permissions. I have been an admin here for so long that my adminship nom doesn't even have its own subpage, as well as on Wikipedia and Wiktionary. In light of User:Jusjih's resignation after his fine service in this capacity, I feel that Wikiquote could use an additional CU just to be sure there is generally someone available to perform the task. I am here frequently these days, and can make a point of checking in at times when I am usually not here. Cheers!

Vote ends: 15:20:00 10 June 2011 (UTC) (can stay open longer than 2 weeks if need be)

Per m:Checkuser#Access_to_CheckUser, candidate must receive consensus (at least 70%-80% in pro/con voting), and at least 25-30 editors' approval, to be considered for promotion.

• Please note that this is a separate discussion from my RFB. Thanks. BD2412 T 17:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. BD2412 has been one of the major contributors to this project, and though we have disagreed strongly on some issues, I recognize this person as fair and honest in performing many duties as an long standing admin, and stating assessments, even with such opinions as must be opposed to my own. I truly sorrow that principled partial support of me in situations where somehat unprincipled distortions and manipulations of the opinions and prejudices of those who might have some reasonably principled presumptions against me has generated any opposition at all to this nomination. I also sorrow for any burdens this role might have on this candidate; it was one I chose NOT to pursue, back in the "good old days" when most others here considered me an ideal candidate for such a position, and had asked me to be such, but I declined because I neither desired such abilities, nor to confront potential conflicts of interests I perceived might arise in some of my activities. There is much more I might say on this and other matters, but for now I simply support this nomination of a person who has exhibited what I consider to be a fair and judicious examination of many matters, even where we must disagree. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 21:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
2. Support. Again, as with the request for Bureaucratship, I believe that BD2412 will be a strong addition to the CU team and will use the tools to provide value to the project. ~ UDScott 00:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. , with over 200 sockpuppets "without reservation" for admin. diff, diff. Even after being blocked indefinitely for socking on multiple projects, Kalki openly continues to utilize sock accounts on other Wikimedia Foundation projects: "I have used many account names here in the past, and continue to do so elsewhere..." BD2412 is an inappropriate candidate for Bureaucrat, because sockmasters with over 200 plus socks, who continue to sock on Wikimedia Foundation projects after being indefinitely blocked should not be promoted to admin, and that is poor judgment by BD2412. BD2412 is an inappropriate candidate for Checkuser, because he cannot be expected to perform neutrally and without bias towards a sockmaster with over 200 socks who continues to operate socks across multiple WMF projects — and this demonstrates severe judgment problems. -- Cirt (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Cirt's presumptive "neutrality" on this and many other matters seems certainly beyond question — to Cirt — and Cirt alone. I must sorrow that principled support of a few of my contentions has led to what I consider to be a rather unprincipled hostility to this nomination. I expect that amidst all the storms of contentions generated by malice and disagreement, Truth will abide, and eventually prevail — and the contemptible distortions, deliberate deceitfulness and outright lies which have been made will be exposed for what they are. I can trust in the good nature of MOST people, even when it is for a time blinded by misuse and abuse of supposed "facts" and claims about supposed facts. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 21:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral as BD2412 supported a confirmed sockmaster, Kalki for admin.--Jusjih 08:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• Questions. Do you think that it is appropriate for someone to be both a checkuser and a bureaucrat? Can you explain how you see the two roles and the requirements for two different sorts of approaches working together. What risks do you see in jointly holding the two roles? Billinghurst 12:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I have been around long enough to remember when adminship bids (on Wikipedia, not as much on this project) were considered "no big deal" because they merely indicated that the editor making the request was trusted enough by the community to be given a mop with which to do more cleaning up. Since then they have sort of grown to be a far more searching process, tending to mystify the position itself, as though admins were intended to be leaders of public discourse, and to have a super-set of talents in article writing, conflict resolution, vandal hunting, and so forth. However, I continue to believe that the various levels of user privileges available through wikiprojects are basically mops to be awarded to users who can be trusted not to misuse them, nefariously or accidentally. CU probably requires the highest level of trust of any position that can be granted to a member of the community by the community itself, and I therefore believe that anyone trusted to not misuse the CU tools would be trusted to not misuse the 'crat tools either. On that basis, it is appropriate for anyone who is a CU to also be a 'crat because there is no reason that the community should have the level of trust to make someone a CU in the first place if they didn't trust that editor with the 'crat powers.
    Regarding the two different sorts of approaches, there really is only one approach to both jobs, and that is to use these additional tools with judiciousness, respect for the community, and common sense.
    Regarding the risks of jointly holding the two roles, it would be problematic if a project had only one person exercising both roles, either formally or in practice. Obviously, if these powers were to fall into the hands of a vandal, they would be able to make a pretty big mess. The worst-case scenario would be a vandal with access to CU powers, who could do irreparable damage by disclosing private information about editors discernible from their IP addresses. That is a risk of making anyone a CU, whether they are a 'crat or not, although vandalism could be compounded by someone using 'crat powers to de-admin everyone else while making a bunch of vandal edits. I believe we had a 'crat go bad one time on Wikipedia, and WMF had to step in and undo the damage, all of which was undone by the end of the day. Furthermore, a well-meaning but biased individual holding both roles could conceivably want a particular admin candidate to succeed so strongly that he might first misuse his role as a CU to conceal sockpuppet activity by the candidate from the community by falsely reporting an absence of it, and then use his role as a 'crat to promote that individual at the end of the process if consensus to promote is murky. The possibility of these things occurring is why we require the trust of the community to give a candidate these powers at all, and why we are required to have multiple CU's and multiple 'crats at any given time. I can only give my word that I will not misuse those powers just as I have not misused my admin powers, and point to my own record of openly expressing my opinions in discussions, and carrying out the consensus of the community when it differed from my own views. BD2412 T 16:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

As a checkuser at another of WMF's projects, I personally have a concerns that there should be a separation of powers of checkusers and bureaucrats, and that the separation should be specifically demonstrated to exist. While I sometimes wish that I could wave the 'crat wand to make certain issues go away, I also note that these tasks are generally not time critical. With CU they are time critical, and where I have issues that need a 'crat hat, I see positive aspects in actually undertaking the discussion and explicitly going through the rationale of my thinking. Also, when at the other site we had issues with a particular user, the ability to use my CU tools, and to answer the 'crat with some yes/no answers enabled us to have a clear separation thinking. I would encourage you to consider the undertaking one of these roles as being sufficient, not undertaking both. Billinghurst 13:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Although I am not personally concerned with my ability to segregate my thought processes when wearing different hats - this being the stock and trade of my profession - I understand your objection. I would think that the best way to effect a "separation of powers" would be for someone who happens to be both a CU and a 'crat to not close adminship requests for which they had performed CU tasks. The availability of persons able to do perform either would be enhanced by increasing the number of CU's and 'crats on this project generally. My view is that I am basically just volunteering to do additional work for this project, the need for which is apparent from the relatively small number of persons holding each position on this project. From my review of FloNight's investigation of Kalki's multiple accounts, I can see that this can be tedious and thankless work. If another trusted user is interested in taking on the CU task, I'll withdraw this application and stand for Bureaucrat only, but we would certainly benefit from having more of both. BD2412 T 16:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Could you please respond to Cirt's oppose? Thank you, NuclearWarfare 02:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Cirt made the same comment on my RFB, and I gave a fairly thorough response there. Although Kalki's cadre of sockpuppets has certainly been eccentric, Kalki has never been shown to have used them to vandalize or fix votes. I have looked over some of Kalki's sockpuppet edits, and although he has on occasion used them to talk to himself, his motivation seems primarily to be using them to make improvements to articles through the addition of properly sourced quotes, corrections to formatting, and addition of unobjectionable images. On the other hand, when Kalki was an admin, he primarily used his adminship powers to block vandals, delete pages created in the course of such vandalism, and edit the protected 'quote-of-the-day' pages. Despite his eccentricity, Kalki was useful to Wikiquote as an admin.
    However, I also explained to Cirt in my RfB response that I respected community consensus not to re-admin Kalki, and if I were the 'crat closing that discussion, I would have closed it as having failed. If, as a CU, I was asked to investigate and report on Kalki's sockpuppet activities, I would do so without hesitation. I believe my history of activity on this project is one of openly expressing my views and then respecting and implementing consensus, whether I agree with it or not. BD2412 T 02:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Wrong. See for example comment by FloNight (talk · contributions), "The use of this many accounts was disruptive and had to be evaluated by checkusers and other people experienced with evaluation socking. And I stand by my assertion that the accounts were used in a deceptive manner." -- Cirt (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Cirt, I feel that you have been trying to make these processes yet another referendum on Kalki. Please feud elsewhere. I concede that the hundreds of sockpuppets that Kalki had was problematic, but as I recall he agreed to keep the number down, and has done so. I am aware that he did use them to have conversations with himself, but so far as anyone has demonstrated he didn't do so in any formal process where community consensus was being gauged. We had a difference of opinion in the last discussion on this, and, as an administrator, I will now do whatever is required of me to enforce the consensus of the community coming out of that process. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Wrong again. See Use admin tool/mult accounts same page, Use in policy discussion, and Vfd votes by multiple accounts. Clear violations and disruption. -- Cirt (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
          • I had not seen those before. I really wish you had brought them up to me when we had been discussing the matter in Kalki's re-adminship discussion. It would certainly have made me rethink my position. BD2412 T 03:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
            • They have been brought up, multiple times, by myself and by FloNight (talk · contributions). They have been linked for a long time, at User:FloNight/Kalki. I find it shocking that a Checkuser candidate on this project has not carefully read through all of User:FloNight/Kalki. -- Cirt (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
              • I will do so now - thank you for bringing this to my attention, it is indeed very instructive. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
                • Please, let us know your thoughts, after you have done so. -- Cirt (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
                  • I have initiated a dialogue with Kalki about making amends to FloNight for all the work she had to do on his account. I continue to believe that Kalki has good intentions toward the project - for example, that dialogue where he used a sockpuppet to warn a vandal, and then used his primary account to block the vandal, was unquestionably improper, but the block itself was definitely correct, as the vandal was inserting false statements into an article. However, I think Kalki also fails to understand how his eccentricities burden other editors. I mentioned in Kalki's re-adminship discussion that I wish there were some way to separate the adminship tools from the leadership role, as it would certainly be useful to the project to have more hands blocking vandals and engaging in mundane tasks that require the tools. BD2412 T 16:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • So I had originally somehow read Cirt's comment as "Oppose, BD2412 is blocked on several wikis for sockpuppetry," which is obviously not what he actually said. I'm not really a member of the Wikiquote community, so I likely will not be returning here. My apologies, NuclearWarfare 03:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
    • No problem - we're all human here. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

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.

Requests for bureaucratship

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: Successful application.

BD2412

I, BD2412 (talk · contributions), hereby nominate myself for bureaucratship. In light of Jusjih's resignation from CheckUser status, I have thought to seek appointment to that position. Since CU requests are occasionally tied into adminship bids, it makes sense that a CU should be a 'crat, so I am requesting both. I believe my level of activity on this project should be well-known to anyone who might vote here, so I won't belabor the statistics. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Please note that this is a separate discussion from my CU request. Thanks. BD2412 T 17:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. I believe that BD2412 has been a strong contributor to the project and would responsibly use the available tools in this new role. I also agree with the arguments he/she has made below against Cirt's points regarding the recent discussions on Kalki's admin vote. I do not believe that the opinions expressed should disqualify him/her from this position. As was pointed out, the established rules are not what they could be - perhaps they should be strengthened and such discussions would not have taken place if that were the case. But as things currently stand, I do not believe that the expression of support for Kalki as an admin should result in negative repercussions here. I actually initially supported Kalki, but changed my vote after continued discussion. Does this mean that Cirt wishes me to resign my positions as well? If this is the case, fine, but I'm not sure the rationale for doing so is sound. I believe that BD2412 made a correct argument is separating a community discussion, in which all actions by a user were weighed (not just the specific sockpuppet behavior), versus actions required by a Bureaucrat in enforcing established policies (and as mentioned the policies in this are are not as clear as they could be). In the end, I believe that BD2412 could do much to help the project in this role and I therefore support this request. ~ UDScott 17:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
2. Support. BD2412 has been one of the major contributors to this project, and though we have disagreed strongly on some issues, I recognize this person as fair and honest in stating assessments, even such opinions as must be opposed to my own. I truly sorrow that principled partial support of me in situations where somehat unprincipled distortions and manipulations of the opinions and prejudices of those who might have some reasonably principled presumptions against me has generated any opposition at all to this nomination. There is much more I might say on this and other matters, but for now I simply support this nomination of a person who has exhibited what I consider to be a fair and judicious examination of many matters, even where we must disagree. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 19:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
3. Support. I have no doubt of BD2412's ability to use account maintenance tools effectively. It will be good to have another person to service WQ:CHU, which tends to receive very slow response. I have every confidence that he will respect community consensus in closing discussions that call for the use of these tools. (The role of Bureaucrat is not highly restricted because it requires extraordinary powers of discernment, it doesn't, but because the tools could wreak havoc in the hands of a malicious person, which BD2412 isn't.) Contrary to Cirt's interpretation of events, I believe trustworthiness is demonstrated by respecting the consensus when one has expressed a minority view. There is no special reason to trust that someone who has never been in the minority will respect the majority when the situation is different. I have participated in very many discussions with BD2412, and have never known him to disrespect a consensus with which he disagreed. ~ Ningauble 20:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
4. Support An active bureaucrat is highly beneficial for the project, specially for the sake of WQ:CHU, and BD2412 is fairly active and has shown his discretion both in using his admin tool and in discussion, even if I disagree with him on some issues. --Aphaia 16:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
5. The project certainly needs active bureaucrats, and I think BD2412 does good work in general as an admin and is active, so they will do well. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 18:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
6. Cbrown1023 talk 00:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. BD2412 supported a confirmed sockmaster, Kalki, with over 200 sockpuppets "without reservation" for admin. diff, diff. Even after being blocked indefinitely for socking on multiple projects, Kalki openly continues to utilize sock accounts on other Wikimedia Foundation projects: "I have used many account names here in the past, and continue to do so elsewhere..." BD2412 is an inappropriate candidate for Bureaucrat, because sockmasters with over 200 plus socks, who continue to sock on Wikimedia Foundation projects after being indefinitely blocked should not be promoted to admin, and that is poor judgment by BD2412. BD2412 is an inappropriate candidate for Checkuser, because he cannot be expected to perform neutrally and without bias towards a sockmaster with over 200 socks who continues to operate socks across multiple WMF projects — and this demonstrates severe judgment problems. -- Cirt (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
   • I appreciate your concern, but this boils down to a difference of opinion that is really irrelevant to my ability to be unbiased. As a bureaucrat, I would have closed Kalki's bid for adminship as a failure, just as I have closed closed requests for deletion that I have personally disagreed with in accordance with community consensus running in the other direction. I have also indicated to you before that I would support you in an effort to change the rules to bar candidates from adminship who are shown to have undisclosed sockpuppets, since the rules do not presently impose such a bar. I would hope that you would gauge my ability to perform the functions of a bureaucrat on my unbiased execution of administrative tasks, as opposed to my expression of personal opinion in a community discussion, which has never affected the way that I carry out my responsibilities to the community. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
     • Kalki does not just have one or two "undisclosed sockpuppets", for years he had over 200 on this project. He admitted he still socks on other projects. He was blocked indefinitely for socking on multiple other Wikimedia Foundation projects. And yet you wanted him to be an admin. This bodes very dangerous for giving the Checkuser tools to this candidate. -- Cirt (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
       • I assure you that as a Checkuser, I will diligently investigate and report any sockpuppet activity I uncover, irrespective of whether I personally believe that the user in question is using such accounts in a way that violates project policies. Again, if you believe additional restrictions on the use of multiple accounts should be part of this project, I'll support you on that. If we had a rule saying that sockpuppetry by itself disqualified candidates from adminship, I'd have voted against Kalki's bid on that basis. BD2412 T 16:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
         • Your words are nice, but your actions (or inaction rather) towards a proven and confirmed sockmaster speak otherwise. -- Cirt (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
           • My inaction? Do you think I should have blocked Kalki? I'm not sure what action I was supposed to take but did not. Also, please do not combine this discussion with the Checkuser discussion as you did here. These are two separate inquiries. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
             • I am frankly amazed that the extremely foul distortions of fact — and intentions at GENERATING of foul-seeming "facts" and fouler rules based upon Cirt's personal will and apparent ambitions have not at this point become far more evident to people than they are. Cirt states that I "was blocked indefinitely for socking on multiple other Wikimedia Foundation projects" — this deplorable event occured at Cirt's instigation and accusations, during his rampage of defamation of me months ago — where, as recently, Cirt blocked my IPs in ways that prevented me from from posting ANY objections on my primary computers. I chose not to respond to some of these since then, simply because I have had far more important matters to attend to than what I expect will be a VERY complicated and contentious situation. I have stated or implied that I DO intend to openly expose and confront some of the abuses I perceive have been occurring in recent years on the wikimedia projects, which I hold still REMAIN primarily honorable enterprises, despite the fact that strong elements of extremely corruptive and corrupted cliques of some of those most active in devising and enforcing rules often gain greater influences, prestige and power than those most interested in simply contributing to the project in largely obscure, anonymous and unimpressive ways. This is to some extent natural, and I don't resent people for many of their flaws, but must oppose those who make some of the foulest efforts to undemine and diminish the virtues of others. I have long noted that some of those who I consider the very worst influences often seem very willing and eager to denigrate, defame and deride those who actually do the most constructive work. I am certainly NOT saying the honorable foundation or the wikis have been "taken over by a cabal" — as some have implied — I am saying that there are strong elements of EXTREMELY corruptive hostility to such independence from top-down directives as actually FOUNDED the wikis, and I consider this extremely unfortunate. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 20:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC) + tweaks
               • Both of you: if this is going to continue, I would rather this be discussed elsewhere. Thank you. BD2412 T 20:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

• Comment I would like to challenge the statement "Since CU requests are occasionally tied into adminship bids, it makes sense that a CU should be a 'crat, so I am requesting both." How does it make sense? Please explain what could otherwise be seen as a glib statement. One could make the reverse argument with the same glib statement that keeping them separate makes sense. In fact I feel that it could be more evident that a separation of the duties if at all possible is well worthwhile when considering the restrictions on the how and when to use CUtools, and how that gives a better level of protection for both parties. Billinghurst 12:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually, come to think of it, the most immediate correlation between the positions arises not with an adminship bid, but with someone using sockpuppets to misuse admin powers, for example by rigging discussions with sockpuppets and then closing them as an admin, or by unprotecting protected articles as an admin and then vandalizing the unprotected pages from another account. Obviously, where such activity is discovered by a CU, the community would want the vandalizing admin's powers to be suspended as quickly as possible, so ideally a CU who discovers such activities would also have the 'crat power necessary to de-admin the offender until the community could decide how to proceed. As for the utility of these powers in adminship bids, I can give you an example by way of comparison with AfD's I have closed on Wikipedia. When closing a contentious AfD, the closing admin sometimes discovers shenanigans going on in the votes, such as users or anons changing the votes of others users, voting multiple times with false signatures, and so forth. Similarly, if an adminship bid appears to include suspicious patterns of behavior by participants in the discussion, a person who had both CU and 'crat powers could initiate an investigation into possible sockpuppet activity among participants in the discussion, and then take this into account in determining whether an actual consensus exists and closing the discussion accordingly. BD2412 T 16:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually, bureaucrats do not de-admin. Have you reviewed the definition of the role here and at Meta? ~ Ningauble 16:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Not well enough - I probably had Wiktionary in mind, where 'crats have de-admined several Wonderfool sockpuppets that had managed to get adminships. I had thought about volunteering for the position there a few years ago, but there was never a pressing need for candidates. I am actually somewhat surprised that 'crats can not de-admin here, since the worst-case scenario of an admin vandalizing (directly or through sockpuppets) would require swift action. It would be prudent for me to take a few days to more thoroughly examine the actions of 'crats on this project, however. BD2412 T 18:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
        • In a worst-case emergency, anyone can ask a Steward to intervene. ~ Ningauble 18:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
          • I suppose the chances of a Steward being available in a pinch are just as good as the chances of a 'crat on the project being available. To be honest, I don't think I've ever needed to call on a Steward, as I have never personally caught an admin vandalizing. BD2412 T 19:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I confess I skipped your words at the first glance "Since CU requests are occasionally tied into adminship bids, it makes sense that a CU should be a 'crat, so I am requesting both. " That is an idea what I've never thought. Did you mean then you could de-admin with bureaucratship? Then, now that you know you misunderstood, do you request still for this flag too? --Aphaia 17:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I do continue to request both. My thought in seeking both was that someone serving as both a CU and a 'crat could address concerns either that an admin candidate was engaged in sockpuppetry, or that other participants in an adminship discussion were using sockpuppets to affect the outcome of the discussion. I do recognize the concerns raised about the same person performing 'crat and CU functions in the course of the same discussion. If the community feels that this represents a conflict of interest, I would avoid doing so, just as I avoid closing deletion debates that I have initiated unless consensus is unquestionably clear. However, the fact that I am an admin and am able to close deletion discussions does not prevent me from nominating bad articles for deletion, and having both the CU and 'crat roles would similarly enable me to serve as a CU when one was needed, and as a 'crat when one was needed in a separate process. I think we have demonstrated a need for more 'crats, and for more CUs, and I am willing to do both. I am also of the philosophy that these roles are no more than additional opportunities to volunteer and take on additional work for the good of the project, albeit using tools that require greater discretion and the trust of the community. Anyone who is trusted not to misuse the CU powers would need to be someone who could be trusted not to misuse 'crat powers anyway. BD2412 T 18:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

BD2412 is now a bureaucrat.

This request has got both 6 supports and 1 opposition. Even if I reduce my own support for avoiding conflict of interest, it would remain 5 supports against 1 opposition. I read it as a a rough consensus for BD2412's promotion, and therefore close this request as successful. --Aphaia 20:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

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.