Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Kalki

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.