♘ Kalki · †alk · iota · index · imago · αnima · ! ¡ ! · Magic · Worldsong · Restorations · Chronology · Vox Box
… Ω …

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

This page is devoted primarily to a sequence of events which occurred in October - November 2010; it is likely that it will take a week or more before a full account is delivered here, as I remain busy with many other things. ~ Kalki 17:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

These events led to the creation of the page Restorations on 1 November 2010, and the page Chronology as well as this one on 4 November 2010, and Vox Box on 7 November 2010.

Village Pump dialogue

RFC: Appel Quotes

Over the past few days I have been removing quotes of Jacob M. Appel from a large number of theme pages. Most of these quotes appear to have been contributed by a puppet ring, as described at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Checkuser request: Appelphilia, where I indicated my intention to remove them. Today an IP user from a dynamic address (173.244.219.133, ...140, ...154, ...159, ...161, ...172, ...173, ...176) has reverted most ~~or all~~ of these removals.

I am therefore requesting community comment on whether it is appropriate to keep or to remove these quotations. Thank you. ~ Ningauble 18:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Remove – I believe that these quotes are not suitable for a compendium of famous quotations, primarily because they are not widely quoted in noteworthy sources, and also because they do not appear to be the sort of particularly remarkable statements that will be widely quoted fifty or a hundred years hence. I do recognize that the latter reason is a matter of judgment, for what seems an unremarkable observation or a forgettable wisecrack to one person may seem like an unforgettable gem to another; however, given the pattern of behavior of the person(s) who contributed these items (and the relentlessness apparently espoused by the author[1]^{[citation not verified]}), I am skeptical about whether the Quotability of these remarks may not be the opinion of just one person or a small group. (Note also related remarks at Wikipedia about inflating this author's citability.) In the absence of evidence that individual quotes actually are widely quoted in noteworthy sources, I think a presumption that Wikiquote is only being used for promotion is justified in this case. ~ Ningauble 18:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Remove - We had a similar issue in the past with sock accounts spamming quotes from unreliable nonnotable sources. This should be aggressively stopped. -- Cirt (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Remove : This seems to have been a very deliberate promotional effort by someone of this particular author, and the quotes overall are not all that impressive. I would not exclude the possibility of established editors someday perhaps finding something quoteworthy among this authors statements, that could go elsewhere than this author's page, but the addition of his statements to theme pages by anon IPs or unfamiliar editors should be regarded unfavorably, and this is one of the rare cases where I can agree there has been enough clearly improper activity that there should henceforth be a consensus developed among established and concerned editors to add material by this author to any the theme pages. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 02:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Remove. Although I am not usually inclined to such action when quotes are sourced, I agree with the above discussion and certainly question the notability of the person in question as well as the intentions of the anon user and socks that continue to propagate the quotes on multiple pages. ~ UDScott 13:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Update: See also socking at English Wikipedia, at w:Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of TRATTOOO and w:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of TRATTOOO. -- Cirt (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Remove. Also strikes me as a shameless promotion. Thenub314 23:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Remove, per comments above. BD2412 T 03:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

overzealous purgings

This dialogue is one that has occurred on my talk page in relationship to the above comments as of 2010·10·13 15:58 UTC, and I am posting them here for further clarification of matters ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 12:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC) + minor tweaks for grammar and clarity ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 13:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not enable the Appel socks

Please do not enable the Appel socks, as you have done [2], at the page, Howard Zinn. The RFC at Village Pump is clearly against this [3]. Please do not do this again. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 04:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ningauble's original actions were clearly restricted to removal of this author's material from the theme pages — and I recognized and fully approved the propriety of his actions in this regard, but to the extent he implied that there should be more extensive action taken in response to improper behavior on the part of someone I gave some very definite indications that I considered the material on the author's page itself was NOT something I thought we should be overly concerned with, and also that if established editors found something notable or quoteworthy to be added or retained elsewhere it should not be automatically forbidden, merely because of the source. Though quite willing to seem a fool to others for doing so, I have always been against what I consider the extreme foolishness of establishing too great a mandatory rigor in any policies or expressions of policies, when loose adaptable guidelines tempered by rational responses seem much more appropriate — and less instrumental in the building of cliques and gangs of people who suppose and even presume they have the right or duty to dictate to others what can or cannot be done — based upon their own will and presumptions, rather than clearly established group consensus. To say that there is a clearly developed group consensus for such extremes of action when those commenting after me did not take issue with my tempering comments is quite a leap of presumption.

You have also indulged in what I consider to be clearly overzealous behavior in removing quotes by Howard Zinn, simply because their origins were in an interview with this author, and I stated in restoring them, that I considered the Zinn quotes notable enough to be retained. I do not accept the argument that continually seems to be presented by a very few people that there should be an absolute standard of prior quotation used as one that is appropriate to the growth of this project, nor the actual worth of it as a wiki — where I believe the actual content should for the most part be freely extended, and continually determined by developed consensus and not by some overly restrictive rules established by a very few people, some of whom often seem far more active in making and enforcing such self-serving rules as they seek to create as if they were clear and necessary mandates, than in actively building anything in the project other than such rules. By the levels of participation in such matters, I think I can validly assume MOST people are NOT all that interested in developing many further mandatory restrictions here, and I for one remain adamantly opposed to establishing such over-reaching rules, rather than properly considerate and adaptable guidelines, which should never be treated as absolute mandates.

Going beyond what I believe had clearly developed as consensus you also removed quotes from the author's page for no clear reason that I can see beyond that they did not suit your particular tastes, and to including removal of a quote I found about as a notable as anything this author said, which had been included in the caption: "It is easy to let men alone when they do things our way. The test of a truly enlightened civilization is one that lets people alone, to pursue their own predilections, even when the majority of us prefer to live our lives very differently from theirs." I am NOT particularly interested in this author, and not favorably impressed with the behavior of accounts that have been promoting him, but I am also certainly not favorably impressed with behavior that I believe amounts to mere censorship, and service of one's own improper presumptions of authority to absolutely dictate to others what they can and cannot do on this wiki, without clearly developed group consensus on matters.

I had not responded immediately to your actions and posts, because when I noticed them I had been too busy with other matters, and when I had attended sufficiently to these, I actually was too weary to deal with the matter, because, quite frankly, I needed to rest and get some sleep, because I have had very little in the last several days; I now am awake, and though there is much more I wish to note I am only making a few brief comments before I must leave for at least a little while. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 11:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC) + revised and extended slightly ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 12:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Further comments:

As I stated, I am NOT particularly impressed by this author overall, but in an attempt to restore content on the Appel page, which I saw no clear reason to remove, I encountered a roadblock I have little inclination to attending to, as I must be leaving soon, but will mention here: the site opposingviews[DOT]com seems to have been put on a SPAM protection filter. I have not delved into the matter enough to know whether this is or is not appropriate, but it seems a legitimate site which, at least thus far, I see no clear reason for blocking, simply because this author had posted articles there. I now must be leaving, very soon, and leave to others further comments on these matters for a while. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 13:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Kalki, you have a history of socking yourself, you were desysopped for egregious socking on this project. Please, do not enable spam promotional socking by other users through reverting to restore their non-noteworthy spam quotes. -- Cirt (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Administrative action against user Kalki in this matter

In an edit dispute at the Howard Zinn article, over quotes of Zinn from an interview by Appel in a blog, user Kalki and administrator Cirt have engaged in a revert-war. There was a brief, inconclusive discussion of the merits of including these quotes (featuring Kalki's characteristically verbose and digressive style, and Cirt's characteristically curt one), culminating in Cirt blocking Kalki for a period of one week. Cirt also gives sockpuppetry by Kalki as part of the reason for blocking.[4]

Without prejudice to the question of the Zinn quotes or to the community's ambivalent attitude about Kalki's polynymity, I do not approve of blocking users without warning, except in cases of overt vandalism.

I believe that Cirt has misused administrative tools in this instance, and strongly recommend unblocking Kalki. Furthermore, I do not believe that any action should be taken against Kalki in these matters without soliciting community consensus because, whatever one's opinions about the user's idiosyncrasies, this is one of the community's longest standing and highly constructive members. ~ Ningauble 14:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully disagreed with Ningauble. That said, I endorse Kalki's block. We at EnWQ CU team is investigating his sock farm operation which was on-going just before the block in question. And for excessively multiple accounts, I think we warned Kalki enough from years ago (our first warning was issued in Summer 2008, the second Fall 2009). --Aphaia 16:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That said, I don't have any position in the revert war mentioned on the above. I expect that Cirt and Kalki are editors matured enough to solve the issue through discussion with the other editors who concern, after the block term is expired. --Aphaia 16:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I too have noticed Kalki's sockpuppets during the last couple months, and disapprove of it. Indeed, I disapprove strongly because they have been used to tag-team on some articles and, I think, to engage in misleading "conversations." However, I still feel that Cirt jumped the gun by blocking before a discussion or investigation is concluded. The first on-wiki mention of Kalki's renewed socking was a blocking notice. Cirt's preemption gives the impression of acting out of interest in an editorial disagreement. ~ Ningauble 17:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

While I think the block itself can be beneficial principally, personally I'm saddened with the way Cirt took. I agree with Ningauble that it wouldn't be our best practice. In my understanding our best practice against problematic users who are no vandals in progress is "first ask, then use the tool". I am not sure if we have documented, though. On the other hand, on timing,　Cirt asked me if a certain account which was not mentioned on the above could belong to Kalki and I submitted my firsthand report to checkuser-l on October 12, and analysis was given by several cross-wiki CUs and Cirt as EnWN CU could review that. It had been one day before Cirt performed the block. We are still detecting socks here and there so I won't say we've finished it, but as said, it was whilst not concluded yet, but not based on an assumption. --Aphaia 19:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I thank Checkuser Aphaia for the endorsement of the block on the Sockpuppeteer, Kalki (talk · contributions). Much appreciated. -- Cirt (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

KALKI ARCHIVE PAGE NOTE: I was NOT able to legitimately engage in this discussion, because though I might have easily done so, it would have easily been interpreted as technically, an "evasion of a block" — even though I fully and adamantly assert that that block was an entirely IMPROPER and unjust response to an edit despute — and was followed by a rampage that was clearly intended to defame me, constrain me and if possible expel my presence altogether from the Wikimedia projects — I did not take the obvious bait, and though much maligned and constrained, I remain defiant and resolved to expose many of the unjust and dictatorial presumptions which have occurred in this incident and a few relevant occasions prior to it.~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 18:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Kalki talk page dialogue

Please do not enable the Appel socks

Please do not enable the Appel socks, as you have done [5], at the page, Howard Zinn. The RFC at Village Pump is clearly against this [6]. Please do not do this again. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 04:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ningauble's original actions were clearly restricted to removal of this author's material from the theme pages — and I recognized and fully approved the propriety of his actions in this regard, but to the extent he implied that there should be more extensive action taken in response to improper behavior on the part of someone I gave some very definite indications that I considered the material on the author's page itself was NOT something I thought we should be overly concerned with, and also that if established editors found something notable or quoteworthy to be added or retained elsewhere it should not be automatically forbidden, merely because of the source. Though quite willing to seem a fool to others for doing so, I have always been against what I consider the extreme foolishness of establishing too great a mandatory rigor in any policies or expressions of policies, when loose adaptable guidelines tempered by rational responses seem much more appropriate — and less instrumental in the building of cliques and gangs of people who suppose and even presume they have the right or duty to dictate to others what can or cannot be done — based upon their own will and presumptions, rather than clearly established group consensus. To say that there is a clearly developed group consensus for such extremes of action when those commenting after me did not take issue with my tempering comments is quite a leap of presumption.

You have also indulged in what I consider to be clearly overzealous behavior in removing quotes by Howard Zinn, simply because their origins were in an interview with this author, and I stated in restoring them, that I considered the Zinn quotes notable enough to be retained. I do not accept the argument that continually seems to be presented by a very few people that there should be an absolute standard of prior quotation used as one that is appropriate to the growth of this project, nor the actual worth of it as a wiki — where I believe the actual content should for the most part be freely extended, and continually determined by developed consensus and not by some overly restrictive rules established by a very few people, some of whom often seem far more active in making and enforcing such self-serving rules as they seek to create as if they were clear and necessary mandates, than in actively building anything in the project other than such rules. By the levels of participation in such matters, I think I can validly assume MOST people are NOT all that interested in developing many further mandatory restrictions here, and I for one remain adamantly opposed to establishing such over-reaching rules, rather than properly considerate and adaptable guidelines, which should never be treated as absolute mandates.

Going beyond what I believe had clearly developed as consensus you also removed quotes from the author's page for no clear reason that I can see beyond that they did not suit your particular tastes, and to including removal of a quote I found about as a notable as anything this author said, which had been included in the caption: "It is easy to let men alone when they do things our way. The test of a truly enlightened civilization is one that lets people alone, to pursue their own predilections, even when the majority of us prefer to live our lives very differently from theirs." I am NOT particularly interested in this author, and not favorably impressed with the behavior of accounts that have been promoting him, but I am also certainly not favorably impressed with behavior that I believe amounts to mere censorship, and service of one's own improper presumptions of authority to absolutely dictate to others what they can and cannot do on this wiki, without clearly developed group consensus on matters.

I had not responded immediately to your actions and posts, because when I noticed them I had been too busy with other matters, and when I had attended sufficiently to these, I actually was too weary to deal with the matter, because, quite frankly, I needed to rest and get some sleep, because I have had very little in the last several days; I now am awake, and though there is much more I wish to note I am only making a few brief comments before I must leave for at least a little while. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 11:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC) + revised and extended slightly ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 12:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Answered at Village Pump. -- Cirt (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

'Self-promotion' may look bad (to others), but that does not make it wrong. If a quote conforms to WQ standards, who inserted the quote, or what is being said, should not matter. (There would be little progress if people do not indulge in 'self-promotion', there would be just regurgitation of old ideas. It reminds me of a passionate essay by Claude Shannon lamenting that the literature of Communication theory is exploding, and pleading "please, no expositions, only original work".) N6n 07:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

Blocked for one week. Using sock account User:Crystal Blue Persuasion socking at Template:New pages, and disruptive editing and enabling of spam promo edits of socks of User:TRATTOOO. The combination together is just too much: 1) Using socks yourself to edit Wikiquote-process pages, a violation of w:WP:SOCK, and enabling socking behavior of another massive sock farm operated by someone else, as well - near on doing so at the same time. -- Cirt (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello Kalki, thanks for the work at Oliver Heaviside as User:Crystal Blue Persuasion. N6n 06:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Update: Checkuser Aphaia has declined request at Village Pump by N6n (talk · contributions) to have Kalki unblocked. In a separate comment at Village Pump, Checkuser Aphaia has endorsed the block on the Kalki account. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This is just a note to say that I have checked in and my editing abilities have resumed. I currently have become far too busy with far too many other things of far greater importance than attempting to immediately address what I consider to have been the outrageous behavior of Cirt. I will probably do so quite thoroughly within the next week or so, perhaps beginning within a few days. For those of you who objected to the block, I thank you. I currently must attend to many other things I have become involved with. I will be back. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 22:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Correction : I tried to do a minor remedial edit to another page than this talkpage (apparently EVEN it had been blocked to prevent my editing prior to today, but I didn't realize that until I tried to edit earlier today) I currently remain blocked from editing any other page on this or any other wiki because of a wikimedia wide block Cirt placed on my current IP that is not set to expire until some time NEXT YEAR : 20:02, 13 October 2011. As I stated, I am far too busy with too many other things to deal with all the complications of this situation right now, but it would be somewhat considerate if someone would remove the ridiculous year-long block on my current IP address. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 23:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This is because these IPs have been used to create massive sock farms across multiple Wikimedia project sites. -- Cirt (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

As I have before asserted, having multiple accounts, primarily intended for innocuous and constructive edits does NOT constitute a violation of any current policy of which I am aware. ANY edits that may or may not be in technical violation of some current rules, or have the appearance of being so remain a matter of debate. Are you implying your outrageous attempt to silence me and prevent my editing here remain in place for an entire year unless I switch my IP to an address that I have not yet used, so that you can persist in what I consider to be your presumptive retaliation for daring to contend with you on an editorial issue? In all my years as an admin here I had been censured by a few only for the very few debatable issues that occurred years ago, and certainly my questionable behavior never rose to the massively arrogant and truly quite INFANTILE abuse of admin abilities that you have indulged in, in your one person pogrom. ~ Kalki 23:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not utilize such language comparing blocking of sockpuppets to the killing of people and genocide. -- Cirt (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I am using the term in the broader original Russian sense of the word, as a violent rampage. I am a person quite aware of the malleability of language and rules devised as if words were not malleable by the crafty; it is one reason I place no faith in the absolute reliability words or declarations made with them, and determine my assessments of situations and circumstances primarily by activities, relationships and behavior patterns. Words can be very useful and even necessary to communicate many forms of truth, but they can also easily be twisted to make lies and outrageous distortions seem credible or even definitely true. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 23:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This does not appear to be a global IP block or a local hard-block. It may be an autoblock resulting from the indefinite blocking of named sockpupets. Perhaps Cirt would like to clarify? See also WQ:AN#Local IP block exemption for User:Kalki. ~ Ningauble 18:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Offer

If you strike out (using <s></s>) the offensive comments you have made above in this inappropriate comment, and agree to be restricted to one account, this one, Kalki, then I will make this account "IP block exempt", so you will be able to edit from this one account. Do you agree to these two requests? -- Cirt (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 23:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Village Pump dialogue

User:Kalki blocked for a week: please reconsider

Kalki is one of the top contributer at WQ. To block him for a week merely for (supposedly) enforcing policy is just wrong. Besides:

The block says: Abusing multiple accounts: User:Crystal Blue Persuasion socking at Template:New pages, and disruptive editing and enabling of spam promo edits of socks of User:TRATTOOO.

Nowhere does the policy say that "socking" is prohibited, only that "abusing" it is prohibited. I don't see anything which could be construed as "abuse" in Kalki's edits. I am not lawyering: prohibiting multiple accounts per se would just not make sense, because you shouldn't block something merely because you don't understand it, there should be an abuse.
The quotes in question are not "spam". ([7])
Does a quote becomes noteworthy only if a (i)not-associated-with-the-quote (ii)WQ editor deems it such? (It is "promo" otherwise.) In any case, by reinserting the quote, a n-a-w-t-q, WQ editor is, after all, claiming it to be noteworthy--which pulls the rug from under the issue.

I am requesting the admins to reconsider it. The proffered reasons don't add up, WQ will miss Kalki's contributions worth one week, and WQ may lose Kalki's goodwill by this. I came across the block by chance. (Although I have interacted with Kalki in the past.) N6n 14:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Declined on checkuser results which won't be released for privacy concerns. I'd add to Cirt's reasoning as follows:

The listed sock is not the whole of his recent sockpuppets. Multiple account creation restarted at least in August. We haven't finished the current investigation, so it would start earlier. or not.
Accumulating excessively multiple accounts without necessity is abuse of computing resource per se. Moreover, it's a crosswiki level disruption several projects' CUs are got involved for investigation, and it's not the first.
We have been tolerant for Kalki, hoping our persuasion may work on him finally. But we might be wrong. It's the third time his sock farm is discovered, and I agree with Cirt that a practical method, not only by words, is required to stop him. --　Aphaia 16:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you to Checkuser Aphaia, I am in agreement with this review. Perhaps having one alternate account for most users is not an abuse of socking but having over 200 socks most certainly is an abuse of socking. Kalki has shown an unwillingness to not build such massive sockfarms across multiple Wikimedia projects, and this most certainly is an abuse. Kalki should be restricted to one account, namely, "Kalki". -- Cirt (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If Kalki wants to have a thousand socks and use them to talk to himself, I see no problem with that so long as he is not using them to make multiple votes in deletion debates and similar discussions. From what I gather, Kalki's motivation is that his philosophy is to make many small improvements without taking credit for them. I think a one-week block is out of proportion to any harm being addressed. BD2412 T 22:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"If Kalki wants to have a thousand socks and use them to talk to himself..." - no, that is just completely inappropriate. Strongly object to users having hundreds of socks. -- Cirt (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I grant you that it is a highly eccentric behavior. While it gives rise to the potential for great disruption, I am struggling to see much in the way of actual harm coming from Kalki. BD2412 T 23:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I will quote FloNight from Wikiquote:Votes of confidence/Kalki where Kalki was desysopped, who stated, "My partial review of your many many accounts showed deliberate efforts on your part to appear as if you were 2 people when you were doing administrative type work, in editing disputes, or in community discussions. This type of deception is a fundamental violation of trust on every wiki where I participate including this one". I agree with this statement. -- Cirt (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I can't argue with that. BD2412 T 00:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Has Kalki engaged in "deception to influence discussions" since? If not, Cirt's quote is useless.

When administrative convenience and computing resources --what enables these computing resources?-- becomes more important than having contributions, you know that the project has been overtaken by bureaucracy. N6n 04:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Kalki has been building sock farms since then, creating new socks across multiple projects. -- Cirt (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

"What an extraordinary taste I—I can't imagine such a thing,—most revolting!—abominable!" With that he paused a moment, and then snapped out, "However, I can't see but that he is within his rights, and he shall have them."... [T]here it was; "justice is always the same," and no stress of personal taste or distaste can force a way around the fact; and so the incident was closed.
Moreover, it was closed without prejudice. The young sapengro never had the faintest official hint that his bizarre taste had come under notice. Here, as always in like cases, the force of invariable example brought out a third great truth about justice, namely: that justice is seldom enough. It showed how necessary it is that matters should be managed, not only with justice, but with the appearance of justice, and that very often the appearance of justice is as important as the substance of justice. ~ Albert Jay Nock, Memoirs

Administrators have failed to act with a befitting behaviour. If having alter-accounts helps WQ overall, and it does not specifically trouble others, the issue should not even arise. The question is not whether there are aspects of his behavior that don't appeal to you, but only, that whether it helps or hurts WQ (as long as the behaviour is not immoral). N6n 05:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It does not help WQ, and in light of past behavior patterns, most certainly is not appropriate behavior to create such large sockfarms, especially in light of past sanctions. -- Cirt (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────────┘
I will summarize my two points (both of which are sufficient in themselves to establish that the block is unjustified). Also, I have added another point.

Justice: Alternate accounts are not prohibited.
Pragmatic reasons:
- What is better, Kalki with his idiosyncrasies, or no Kalki?
- Given his past contributions, Kalki shouldn't have been banned for a week.
Cirt's behaviour:
- In the justification for banning, Template:New pages has been added gratuitously. User:Crystal Blue Persuasion made only two edits, adding [[Christian de Duve]] and [[Oliver Heaviside]]. Are the additions right or wrong?
- In the previous thread, Cirt uses the phrase "the Sockpuppeteer, Kalki" to refer to Kalki. Is "Sockpuppeteer" the only epithet relevant here?
- Cirt goes back to add on User_Talk:Kalki, that the unblock request has been denied by Aphaia and that in another comment Aphaia endorsed the block, but doesn't add what Ningauble and BD2412 said. (Although this behaviour may be customary after unblock request, I don't know.)

I have nothing more to say on this topic. N6n 09:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC) (A mistake: When Justice is invoked, all other standards vanish. Therefore, my argument reduces to just the first point.) N6n 13:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Building sock farms of over 200 socks is not something one would characterize as simply "idiosyncrasies", it is disruptive to multiple Wikimedia sites. Socking is not excused based on who the user is that is doing the socking. Socks and alternate accounts should not edit process-pages, including templates which appear on the Main Page, per w:WP:SOCK. -- Cirt (talk) 09:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Editing template pages with alternate-accounts is indeed prohibited. N6n 15:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Kalki's IP connection blocked for a YEAR: please reconsider

See Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Local IP block exemption for User:Kalki. ~ Ningauble 15:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Does not need its own entire separate subsection for one sentence fragment. Please keep discussion at one page and not across multiple different pages. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Careful: "See X" is not a fragment, it is a complete sentence in the imperative mood. My grammatical sins tend in the opposite direction, toward excessively long and convoluted constructions. (And a one year block is a substantial change of subject for a section about a one week block.) I raised it at AN because it appears to involve technical details about the use of Admin tools, and I mentioned it here not to fork the discussion, but to give notice to interested non-admin members of the community. ~ Ningauble 00:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The blocks are on the socks and IPs behind the 200-plus-massive-cross-Wikimedia-site sock farms, not the sockmaster account Kalki itself. -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: IP was blocked as it was behind massive 200 plus cross Wikimedia site sockfarms

Note: The IPs related to the Kalki sockmaster account were blocked in order to prevent further socking, something the sockpuppeteer has refused to stop doing. Therefore, the blocks on the socks of the Kalki account and the IPs, are appropriate. -- Cirt (talk) 01:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

IF I were intent on simply being an abusive obnoxious idiot such as regularly vandalize and troll the wikis, it is a quite simple matter to evade such blocks and measures as others have set up against me, my IPs and my accounts — but that actually is NOT the case, no matter how often they would like to imply it or even claim it, and I remain adamantly opposed to their efforts to constrain or control the productive endeavors of myself or anyone else in ways which are not clearly necessary, or clearly decided by community mandates, and not simply upon very loose and presumptively restrictive interpretations of past efforts to constrain or limit people's activities. I am currently working from someone else's computer, which I have regular access to, and which does not seem affected by the complications on my own home computer. I expect to only briefly be at this location, so I probably won't do much at this time. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 19:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, comment by FloNight regarding actions by Kalki diff. -- Cirt (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously you seem extremely intent on highlighting that particular assessment by FloNight and preventing any of my subsequent responses to that charge from being considered by the casual observer — the FULL account of dialogue on that page is also available. Though I was not so successful in my arguments as to retain adminship, I actually decided not to pursue the issue so fully as I could and bring all the information I might have brought to bear into discussion at that time, as the levels of potential "punishment" inflicted on me with the loss of adminship was something I considered not worth the dangers or burdens of revealing much more information at that time. My reluctance to reveal much that I withheld out of a greater sense of prudence and genuine concern for the actual welfare of others has considerably diminished in the past year, as some of the dangers or detrimental aspects of such revelations have passed or already occurred, and much which I am capable of disclosing, and increasingly willing to of reveal in coming weeks, could probably cast considerable light on much I previously preferred to keep unmentioned or obscured, as to the beneficial aims and intentions of much of my activities. I might only briefly be at this location, where I can edit without the rather pointless persisting block related to my current home IP, but I will probably attempt to make a more extensive analysis of quite a few matters within the next few days. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 00:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting this comment neglects to acknowledge the sockpuppeteer has refused to stop socking. -- Cirt (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

MUCH more interesting to me is the fact that your comments and activities REGULARLY neglect and attempt to obscure, hide, remove, and use your admin abilities to actually DELETE much of significance to many issues of relevance to this and other discussions. As well as persisting in apparent attempts to make it difficult or even impossible for me to further communicate here at all, if you could find some trivial technicality by which to actually get away with that. There is a HUGE difference in disposition between someone who uses technicalities available to maintain or develop options for constructive contributions and human rights and liberties, and those who seek to use them to constrain, restrict and control human options and freedoms. I certainly do NOT hide or deny the fact that I continue to persist in maintaining that multiple accounts ARE and should be an available option to editors for a multitude of reasons that need not necessarily be specified to others, any more than their reasons for editing here at all are. I actually have no immediate plans to use any of my alternate accounts at present but am frankly disgusted at your continual efforts to vilify such activity as if it was innately unethical, no matter how innocuous and innocent its aim and actual execution; the VERY FEW occasions which could be reasonably construed to be other than that which occurred years ago, hardly merit such persistent assumptions and accusations, but I persist in seeking to do much good here, and keep things as free as possible of unjust dictatorial constraints, whereas I perceive many of the activities of a few others as having acted primarily towards increasing such constraints. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 05:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect assertions. -- Cirt (talk) 06:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe not — and unlike those of many others, I believe I will be able to provide clear proof of some of these assertions which others will not be pleased to have revealed. I am not at home at present, and might not be for a few hours yet, but I will probably get busy on some presentation efforts there later today. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 06:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Kalki restriction proposal

There are two topics of heated discussion floating throughout this thread. One is about Cirt's handleing of the situation, the second is about Kalki's behavior. I would like to avoid taking sides to be honest.

But above the question was asked "Has Kalki engaged in 'deception to influence discussions' since? If not, Cirt's quote is useless." Cirt's quote was one referring a comment made by FloNight in the case where Kalki was desysoped. I decided this was worth investigating.

It turns out I severely underestimated the amount of work necessary in deciding if any of the accounts had been involved in any deceit or abuse. When examining an article to see how Kalki's socks are interacting with other users it is quite difficult to get a sense of, because the number of people in the history list that are actually Kalki may be quite large on some articles. For example, on Jesus socks Baldur, Lugh, Crystal Blue Persuasion and Kalki have all been active. This doesn't seem to be that unusual a page, at many pages the edit histories which at first glance may make it appear that many people are editing the page are really in fact just the various socks of Kalki. Also, it seems to me the socks avoided discussing editing disputes on talk pages and simple reverted changes they were unhappy with (See for example the seemingly good faith edits by 71.203.136.254 that included an attempt to remove the image from Blues brothers, but the image was restored twice by Merlin Ambrosius without discussion). The result is it is very difficult to see where there were conflicts that arose between the socks and other users without carefully examining edits. I am abandoning my attempts to understand if these socks have committed any blatant policy violations.

Does any of these amount to clear abuse? Probably not any one edit or page in and of itself, but the scale and extent of the deception is something that should not be tolerated. And I did choose the word deception. (For example, on User talk:Singinglemon, both Lugh and Kalki present the appearance that they are two different people in their discussion with Singinglemon.)

Thus I would like to formally propose an community restriction be placed on Kalki's activities. I suggest that:

Kalki be allowed to edit only with the account User:Kalki.
Any violations of the above can result in a 3 month block.
Further transgressions, result in blocks of increasing severity (perhaps 6 months, 1 year, indefinite).

I understand this is very harsh, but this is his from the comments above it seems this is his third sock farm, and previous sock farms have resulted in him be desysoped with having stopped him from the habit. As Aphaia said "... a practical method, not only by words, is required to stop him." This is my suggestion for one.

I am still green enough here at WQ to not know the best place to suggest this (probably AN), but familiar enough with wiki's to know that the Village Pump is probably the wrong place. Forgive me. Thenub314 06:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The points you make for the most part deal with what are actually additions of non-controversial quotes to pages under various names, or what I believe is plainly a non-controversial reversal of vandalism — as the image being restored was plainly one of the subject of the page, and even the very few zealous opponents to page images seldom go so far as to object to those. The edit where I briefly thanked a person for their contributions under one name which I had only briefly used, is one I admit it would be better that I had not made, but I hardly think that having made further testimony of gratitude for that person's work under my primary and more established account name is a highly grievous act. I will probably address a few more issues related to such observations soon, but I can agree that this was a slight impropriety, though hardly a malicious or malignant one. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 07:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Support restriction proposal by Thenub314 (talk · contributions). Very well-done analysis, excellent research. -- Cirt (talk) 07:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I certainly cannot object to anyone supporting such a proposal as they believe reasonable, and I believe this contributor's proposal is indeed quite reasonable based upon what he currently knows. I would point out that Cirt has already acted across ALL Wikimedia sites AS IF such a proposal were already established and accepted policy, which it is NOT — thus feeling free to block many of my accounts and deface their pages. As at that time, because of his actions of summary judge, jury, and executioner of sentence after I had entered into an edit dispute with him, I was TOTALLY blocked during this rampage, I was not able to do anything at all about it without technically "evading" a block, which I declined to do, as I was far too busy with other things to enter into much debate at that time anyway. Even were I to eventually accept limits of some number of alternate accounts which others find acceptable, rather than NO specified limits AS has previously been the rights of ALL editors here, there are still several accounts that I would wish to use as clearly appropriate alternate accounts related to some of my identities at other sites, including those where my primary active identity is NOT "Kalki." ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 08:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

For many reasons I obviously favor their being no restrictions upon anyone, not finding such measures actually all that useful against actual vandals intent on causing disruption — and in such very unusual cases as that of myself it simply criminalizes what is primarily meant not as "egotistical" behavior as I believe many have assumed since its public revelation by others — but to a great extent it was intended as self-abnegating behavior, primarily intended as being anonymously or pseudonymously helpful in many ways. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 08:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I support formalizing the editing restrictions as proposed by Thenub314. Several weeks back, in response to an email to the Checkuser mailing list, I reviewed the crosswiki edits made by Kalki and other accounts editing from the same ip addresses as Kalki. And I gave my opinion that the overwhelming majority if not all the edits on these ip addresses were made by Kalki with the primary account and the sock accounts. Looking through the contributions, I found instances where an editor would have the impression that more people than Kalki were involved in a discussion or making edits to a page when it was Kalki editing from multiple accounts. In addition to the most obvious problem of false impressions about consensus than may occur and would need to be monitored to stop abuse, I find that using multiple accounts breaks the norms of wikis where the Community expects to speak with one person through one account. Kalki is being inconsiderate of other people to expect them to keep track of all of the accounts in order to know who that they are speaking to in a discussion. This is especially problematic since Kalki edits cross multiple wikis with all of these accounts about related topics. User contribution are made public so that people can follow the contributions of an user. This is not possible for Kalki without doing a checkuser so this violates the spirit of User account policy cross wiki, including Wikiquote. Given the abuses I found last year, it is not unreasonable to ask Kalki to edit with one account, and if he will not do so voluntarily then to enforce it with a block. FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to assert that the apparent "abuse" you found, primarily from a few edits I had made years before, were such things as I did not acknowledge as deliberate abuse, and I continue to assert I have never deliberately abused any of my accounts, and for the most part tried to avoid even the appearances of having done so. I post your remarks upon my talk page and my responses to them here for the wider notice of the Wikiquote community. ~ Kalki 18:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I support the thrust of Thenub314's proposal. I agree with FloNight that this "breaks the norms of wikis where the Community expects to speak with one person through one account." The purpose of user accounts and user pages is to facilitate cooperation and communication among contributors. Masquerading as a multitude is directly counter to that purpose. Furthermore:
I am particularly concerned by the pattern of using multiple accounts in a manner that creates a misleading impression of popular support for Kalki's editorial practices while, at the same time, consistently and strenuously opposing attempts to elucidate community consensus in guidelines and policies. Whether or not this represents a deliberate attempt to exercise undue influence in the development of community norms, such is its effect. It does not just violate community norms, it undermines them. ~ Ningauble 15:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Support this proposal, based on the current and past discussions. While I do believe Kalki has a lot to offer this site, I do not understand why this value cannot be provided using just one account. If these socks were even working completely independently, I might be persuaded that a small number of multiple identities is not harmful. But the fact that many (or maybe even most) of these socks have been used at one time or another in concert disturbs me. And I fail to see how limiting a user to one account truly harms that user or negatively hampers their freedom to contribute to the site as he or she sees fit. ~ UDScott 15:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Only two arguments have been presented, (i)"administrative ease and computing resources", and (ii)a moral issue about Kalki's (supposed) deception.
Either there are arguments which have not been presented -- but are known by most people -- or you are a bunch of tribals engaged in the primitive dance around a devil-ridden person. (for only devil-ridden people do things which all tribesmen don't understand.)
Let me remind that a week long block has already expired, and the ip of one of the top contributors Kalki is still blocked over this non-issue. It has gone beyond what is "normal" in the "real world" too. N6n 13:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you misconstrue the points that have been made above. Norms are not moral absolutes, and nobody has said that Kalki is an evil person. Different communities have different norms; but as a purely practical matter all communities need normative processes in order to function as communities, tribal or otherwise. ~ Ningauble 15:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

An appeal for you to consider the greater good of the Wikiquote community

Hi Kalki, I'm asking you to please consider the greater good of the Wikiquote community and other wikis where you edit. From reading your accounts user pages and your edits to articles, I have the impression that you have strong views about issues related to how to achieve goodness in a community. I believe that you honestly feel that your accounts are adding something good to Wikiquote. And while that it may be true that there is an element of goodness in the messages that you post with the accounts, the overall harm that comes from using the accounts overrides any benefit that comes from using them. This is especially true since the primary purpose of an user account pages is to relay pertinent information about the user behind the account. Since the primary purpose of your multiple accounts is to make user pages to aesthetically influence the community, and this is not a recognized reason for an exception to the one account per person that is expected cross wiki, then you need to find other ways to express your views to the community about these matters that are outside the main reason for editing wikiquote. I appeal to you, Kalki, to accept that your use of these many account is causing difficulty on site and agree to stop using them for the greater good of the community. You have loads of goodness to offer the Community with the work that you do. FloNight ♥♥♥ 12:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I am again editing from someone else's computer because of blocks I clearly consider to have been excessive and over-reactionary upon my own current IP address.

I had been doing many other things until just recently and just checked in and read your remarks. Your proposals and tone are among the most welcome that have been presented, though I still must disagree with the severity of constraints requested. Rather than persisting in acquiring more accounts without any special constraints, which I still believe should remain the general policy at the Wikimedia sites, I can consider agreeing to specially restricting ONLY myself to a very few of the clearly identified accounts, and perhaps a few others as yet not identified. If I were to create any new accounts, some of which I already have in mind because of names I have used or am intending to use elsewhere on the internet, I could agree to inform a specified checkuser, and to the extent it was deemed necessary or useful, the broader checkuser community could be informed. Also I could inform a checkuser if I knew of anyone using any of the computers at my regular locations of activity creating an account from these as well — clearly identifying these as NOT my own. There have been a few of these in the past, which I have not bothered to specify, because so far as I am aware, most have as yet seldom if ever been used.

Some of the vigor of my past reactions have been because of the ways in which proposals were presented as ultimatums which I held to actually exceed the proper authority of those involved in making them. When I actually bother to react to it beyond silent contempt, I quite often react with intense and principled shows of disdain when anyone presumes to use dictatorial commands and wanton force in socially unwarranted ways against those who appear to be differing in aims of objectives which others cannot immediately understand or appreciate.

I truly already have long had an extensive presence and plans for identities at other sites than those of WIkimedia, and I wish to be able to secure the use of some of these identities at all places, and not have impostors with foul intentions perhaps impersonating, imitating or emulating some of my identities elsewhere, ALL of which are created with motivations to provide positive contributions to various sites in various ways.

A few of the names I would like to use as clearly identified alternate accounts of Kalki are some I have already extensively used, or was planning to so use:

Rumour (talk · contributions)

The Doctor (talk · contributions)

Taliesin (talk · contributions)

Achilles (talk · contributions)

Touchstone (talk · contributions)

I of the Storm (talk · contributions)

There are probably a few more I would like to specify, but I don't have time at present to review the lists nor provide all my reasons for retaining some of these.

There are at least a few other names I use elsewhere I do not yet wish to widely publicize as others which I use or plan to use prominently, but I am willing to inform a checkuser of most of these, or perhaps even openly reveal a few of them within a few months, because with the revelations already made by others the associations would already be easily be made by some.

It is less of an immediate concern to me right now, but as is standard practice to prevent some forms of vandalism I would also like to be able to openly create alternate account names with slight variants of those I have used, but simply have these as dead unused accounts which redirect to the active account with similar names.

As a sincere and deeply devoted advocate of maximal Liberty in all social endeavors, I could openly and willingly agree to such restrictions upon myself — I do NOT wish the general relaxed directives favoring one account or just a few become actual mandates binding anyone else. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 17:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I also would like to specify that the user pages of the other alternate accounts — even if some of these remained blocked, should not merely have the rather presumptuously applied block notice upon them, but should retain many of the generally positive or humorous messages and quotes I had posted upon them, remaining reminders of the good in humanity, and indicators of much of my original intentions in using them, and not merely what I consider cynically presumptive testimonies to some of the most ill-willed interpretations of things possible. ~ Kalki 17:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I support allowing Kalki to use a limited number of openly identified alternate accounts. For whatever reason, he feels more comfortable contributing under different names at different times. Apparently, this appeals to his sense of altruism, to be making "pseudonymous" contributions, like the person who secretly plants flowers alongside the path. If the consequence is that Kalki is comfortable in making a broader array of positive contributions to the project, then so be it. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

No. Strong oppose Kalki using any other accounts than "Kalki". He lost all possibility of that when instead of using one or at maximum two alternate accounts, he created massive sockfarms of over 200 socks, across sites. -- Cirt (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I recall, Kalki was desysoped over the multiple accounts, but I do not recall the community discussing or handing down any further specific prohibition on his use of multiple accounts. I don't see how such a prohibition can be imposed absent discussion and consensus. If there was such a discussion and I missed it, please direct me to it. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that very correct and succinct summation of matters. There has never been any clear community action regarding the issue of multiple accounts, despite the apparent eagerness of a few people to treat those events last year as sanction for blocking my accounts, insisting on the propriety of entirely defacing their userpages, and removing significant remarks and presentations which had been placed upon them for the amusement or edification of the curious. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 22:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I also wish to point out that after I made disclosures here and elsewhere that an account not previously identified as mine "The Doctor", was indeed mine, it has now been blocked and its quite interesting userpage defaced by Cirt. I implore others to reject this harassment and active effort to deface the contributions I had offered to human understanding of principles of fundamental aspects of human decency, wisdom, and good humour upon those and many other pages. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 22:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

BD2412, I am sorry that you feel that way, but it is simply not correct that creating and manipulating usage of over 200 socks in a sockfarm operating across multiple sites is not disruptive in nature. I refer you, again, to comments by FloNight about the manner in which Kalki has used the socks, as well as the more recent assessment by Thenub314 (talk · contributions), above. -- Cirt (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that creating such a sockfarm is not disruptive. However, we do not impose penalties of this nature without a discussion in which those particular penalties are agreed to by community consensus. Warn first, then step things up to the next solution. Kalki seems willing to limit his activities to a relatively small number of identified accounts, and the community has never prohibited such. BD2412 T 22:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

And again, after Kalki's misuse of trust in such a manner, it is not wise to allow him to be permitted to have any sock accounts. -- Cirt (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Then let's have a community discussion and see if we can set a policy spelling out such limitations. BD2412 T 23:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is in the best interest of the community for users to have time to talk through the situation and come to a community decision. I looked into the situation and gave my opinion, but I'm very happy to listen to the opinion of other people including Kalki in order to see if we can work out a way to keep Kalki as a productive editor and also enforce a sensible policy about use of multiple accounts. FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I thank everyone who is taking time to consider the issues involved here in a truly open and considerate way, and does not seek to pass harsh sentence upon what remains activity of largely undetermined character. I had hoped to make a few more expositions of significant things already, but am being delayed by my current situation of being busy with many other things and being impelled into attempting many of my more extensive communications lately from another person's computer. I know I might easily and in a few minutes change the IP address on my own — as many of the more determined vandals would have already done — or not even have any reason to do, because they would never have created so extensive a profile operating from their genuine home IP address. I however am NOT some malicious vandal intent on disruption, and I do tend to not disguise or change my home IP as casually others would. I do hope to address many issues far more thoroughly within the next few days, and am confident of being able to do so even more extensively within the next few weeks, and am in no hurry for immediate resolution or respite from some of my difficulties. I am quite willing to bear many burdens for the sake of liberty, justice and such true unity of purpose as can only arise out of honest and honorable communications, and I hope I shall soon be able to indicate vigorously that this is precisely what I have been engaged in, in many diverse ways. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 10:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I am less sanguine than Kalki about the IP blocks. If any editing restrictions are appropriate, requiring Kalki to edit only while away from home is certainly not a suitable one. It merely imposes an inconvenience that has no relevance to on-wiki conduct. While some might think it appropriate in the interim, until some agreement is reached, I think it is shameful to use punitive harassment as a way to force an accommodation. ~ Ningauble 15:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the sensible thing to do at this point is to open a general discussion on its own page in order to set specific policy limitations on the use of multiple accounts, and to address Kalki's request to be allowed to use a small number of identified alternate accounts in accordance with the policy we set. In the interim, I think Kalki should be allowed to edit from the one account, but I don't think we should punish him prospectively for past acts that were not specifically addressed by a policy of this project. Does anyone want to initiate such a discussion? BD2412 T 03:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That seems overly unnecessary and bureaucratic. Above, here on this page, right now, we already have consensus to support the proposed restriction limiting Kalki to one account: Wikiquote:Village_pump#Kalki_restriction_proposal. -- Cirt (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Cirt has actually just made me laugh out loud with his ironic objection to "overly unnecessary and bureaucratic" behavior. UP to this point, I actually have been less constrained by blocks upon me than my involvement with real-life activities which have kept me busy, and have barely had time to check in here at all on my home computer, not finding much reason to do so without having the capacity to edit from it — but my brief checking in at present from that of someone else has indicated to me a much broader scope of issues than thus far covered, and I intend to address so many of these as I can as vigorously as I can when I have the time to do so. I truly might have but little of that for about a week — so I would request any final decisions upon some matters be delayed until I have time to present more extensive arguments and expositions of facts that are pertinent to these matters — and some of these may indeed take me about a week to sufficiently address, and much information I would like to present I probably won't have time to actually locate, as some material related to details of past events might be on hard-drives not immediately accessible to me at present. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 04:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Kalki, you are really not helping yourself here. Cirt, we need to estblish a policy and stick to it. We can not punish people ex post facto for things that were not violative of Wikiquote policy at the time they were done. I grant that it can be problematic for even a good contributor to have an excessive number of accounts, but we should structure limitations that permit contributors to contribute - even if they are quirky about how they do it - and only levy prohibitions to the extent that specific harm to the project can be shown. BD2412 T 15:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

BD2412, the community can set restrictions on individual users based on presented evidence as proposed and impose a community-based sanction, and the community is in fact doing so, above, at Wikiquote:Village_pump#Kalki_restriction_proposal. -- Cirt (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I concede that policy can be made reactively on a case-by-case basis. Courts often tease out the law in that way, although they usually do it prospectively, establishing the policy in one case and announcing that the defendant will not be subjected to this new rule, but future violators will. I suppose I've said all I can on the issue at this juncture. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a no brainer. I support restricting Kalki to one account. Tiptoety ^talk 04:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Adopted the community consensus that Kalki is limited to one account.--Jusjih 02:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Objection to User:Cirt's usage of the term 'sockpuppeteer'

In 'sockpuppeteer Kalki' the first term is an epithet. Does Cirt not understand this? I suspect this this is an intentional abuse, given that I pointed it out once before.

Cirt should kindly stop doing this. If (s)he cannot use the word 'Kalki' without an epithet, I suggest he use 'one of the top contributors' . Once again: admins have a standard to follow. Cirt has failed to live up to it -- many times -- in the past two weeks. 15:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)N6n

Kalki is a sockpuppeteer. This has been confirmed by multiple different Checkusers from multiple different checks across multiple different Wikimedia projects. This is not an "epithet", and attempting to label it as such in comments by N6n (talk · contributions) is merely a silly way to try to divert attention away from the ongoing socking by Kalki (talk · contributions). It is merely a statement of fact. -- Cirt (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Also see, Kalki's comment (AN) on 'sockpuppeteer Kalki'. Cirt has used the phrases "sockpuppeteer Kalki"/"the sockpuppeteer (Kalki)" eight times in between my two comments on this issue. N6n 13:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for an immediate reduction of block severity

I still oppose Cirt's persistent efforts to imply that I have done anything innately unethical in using alternate accounts, but at this point I certainly have no intentions of using any others until a few issues are more definitely clarified — especially after having even those accounts which I in good faith openly revealed to have been mine rapidly blocked, even though the appropriateness of any such constraints or blocks was something still under debate here.

I do wish to point out that though the triggering events on past complaints of my use of alternate accounts use were of possibly benign nature, here it was clearly precipitated by a highly oppressive reaction to my efforts to OPENLY dispute, as Kalki, on simple editorial issues where Cirt seemed to believe his judgment and decisions should simply be accepted without question or dissent. The assaults on my character and integrity because I dared to challenge such assumptions have magnified to a degree where he seems smugly satisfied with the damages he has already done to my abilities and apparent reputation at this time. I remain quite calmly confident that no matter what damages might persist here or elsewhere because of his quite aggressive efforts, the integrity and value of my views and aims will become much clearer in coming months, and some of the tragically arrogant repressions of the present time will be exposed as not merely ridiculous but profoundly contemptible.

After being prevented from much participation here lately because of my own real-world activities as well as the excessive blocks upon my accounts and IPs, and as I expect to have more time available to work here sometime within the next few days than I have in the last week or so, I am requesting that the current block on my home IP be reduced in its effects to preventing the creation of new accounts, as IS the status of the current block on the IP I am presently using at someone else's computer, which also was placed by Cirt. To imply that there is any clear need for a stronger block than this one on my home IP seems to me an attempt to merely further punish and silence me — an intention which seems abundantly clear based upon much of Cirt's recent activity. I wish to have the opportunity to openly discuss and debate much that has recently occurred, much of which was done while I was effectively blocked from participation and activity in many ways I hold to be both overly severe and unjust, as well as resume constructive editing here to a greater degree than I have recently been able to in my recent brief bouts on someone else's computer. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 01:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple subsections dealing with this, above, on this very page. There is no need to start another new subsection. -- Cirt (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Kalki has made a formal request for specific action. Although there have been previous remarks about the blocks you placed, it is entirely appropriate to devote an editable section to the affected user's appeal. ~ Ningauble 14:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

He made a similar request, above. This is a dup sect. -- Cirt (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Support permitting Kalki to edit from home, or any other convenient location. As discussed elsewhere on this page and at the Administrator's Noticeboard, I believe it is inappropriate to place restrictions on which IP connections may be used to access the registered User:Kalki account as long as the user is not barred from editing. Furthermore, continuing to block IP addresses from being used to edit while logged into this account, as has been done even after this appeal was made, gives the appearance of attempting to circumvent the community's deliberation of Kalki restriction proposal above, by preventing use of the account whether it is blocked or not. ~ Ningauble 14:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Kalki has to date and repeatedly refused to self-restrict himself to not using more than one account. Kalki has been confirmed by checkuser to have built sockfarms, in some cases in excess of 200 socks, across multiple Wikimedia sites. Ability to assume good faith is stretched to the breaking point, when the user in question repeatedly refuses to self-restrict to usage of one account, particularly after the history of socking. -- Cirt (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Suppport allowing Kalki to edit as Kalki from anywhere. He has expressly agreed to this restriction below, and I see no discussion concluding that Kalki should be banned, or prohibited from editing under that one username from his home computer. BD2412 T 17:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I only have a short time to edit from this current location. I don't even have my home IP available right now to note it, and don't wish to publicly note it any more prominently than necessary — but if it is uncertain to any admins involved it can requested of me, I will email the relevant IP to anyone who wishes to reduce the block so that I can actually communicate more freely here. I have agreed to edit pages here ONLY as Kalki while certain issues are being discussed and resolved.

Cirt has elsewhere briefly asserted "Kalki has refused such an agreement." That is actually an irrefutably true statement — unlike some Cirt has made which seem true or irrefutable only to the casual observer — yet it obscures and hides much of immense relevance to the issue, as many of Cirts deliberate actions and statements have done. I actual refused one such agreement some time ago of much greater severity as dictated by Cirt, which demanded I totally bow down to his perverse will to dominate and control much of my behavior on terms set down entirely by him. In what relatively minor attention I have payed to much of his behavior, I have observed such tendencies being manifest in ways I consider truly vile. His above statement that "Kalki has to date and repeatedly refused to self-restrict himself to not using more than one account" is patently FALSE, and clearly intended to hide and obscure the FACT that I AM agreeing, and already earlier HAD agreed to restrict myself to one account while many issues involved are being discussed and resolved.

Cirt regularly and curtly obscures, hides, minimizes the prominence and denies many facts about many things in such expressions as he cares to make — and I am well aware of such strategies occurring at many levels. I confess that I myself quite skillfully have employed similar strategies to defend human liberties rather than oppress them, and without any such personally malicious intentions as he seems to abundantly manifest and demonstrate. Though I recognize that some might validly doubt or question my assertions at the present state of affairs, I remain resolute in not wishing to do any more harm than necessary to anyone — not even this dictatorial editor who has thus far in the past couple weeks succeeded in doing much harm to many of my more important abilities here — and who obviously seems intent on doing more — and who I believe has already attempted to do such things as I believe would result in severe damages to the Wikiquote project, and to a great extent the wikimedia community itself in ways not immediately apparent. He seems intent on doing whatever he can to silent and obscure and remove MUCH of what I have to say, and I have stated that I simply wish the opportunity to simply operate as Kalki — so that I can more effectively expose the magnitude of defamation and desecration of valued principles and practices that have been exhibited in many of his actions and attitudes, thus far with apparent impunity. I call upon any administrators who have the integrity to see the justice of my plea to soon reduce the severity of my block, so that I actually can communicate without such further extremes of inconvenience as some have seemed willing to viciously inflict or casually support. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 15:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: BD2412 (talk · contributions), while I agree with your comment [8] that Kalki should edit from the one account, Kalki, I emphasize that blocks should remain in place to prevent the main account from engaging in socking and creating massive sockfarms. -- Cirt (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure this helps. Clearly, Kalki is still able to edit. If he can do that, he can sock and create accounts wherever he is, and we would have no way to know. At least if he's editing from his home computer, we could match up any socks editing from the same place. BD2412 T 04:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  - With regards to his editing from home - I suggest we follow this suggestion from Tiptoety (talk · contributions). -- Cirt (talk) 08:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
    - To be clear, in that post Tiptoety wrote, in part, "Being that Kalki's main account is not blocked, I would support editing the block settings to remove the autoblocks that are preventing her from editing." Does this mean that you no longer oppose granting Kalki's appeal, and now support the broader action of removing the IP autoblocks altogether? ~ Ningauble 14:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
      - No, it does not, as Kalki has refused to restrict himself to one account. -- Cirt (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
        Ok, then what do you mean by suggesting we follow Tiptoety's suggestion? What part of his suggestion are you recommending for action? ~ Ningauble 17:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
        
        Kalki has agreed to restrict himself to one account "while certain issues are being discussed and resolved". I presume this to mean the multi-account issues at the heart of this conflict. If that is what Kalki means by "certain issues", then he has not actually refused to restrict himself to one account, but has merely made this restriction conditional on the outcome of the discussion. In that case, it seems that we should let Kalki edit from his home IP, at least until those issues are resolved. BD2412 T 18:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
        Kalki's statement regarding use of one account was not really clear or unambiguous enough. -- Cirt (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
        Agreed. That's why I said "if that is what Kalki means". Up to him to clarify. BD2412 T 20:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
        We are in agreement that we both want clarification from Kalki about being restricted to use of one account only. -- Cirt (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat above this section is posted:

"Adopted the community consensus that Kalki is limited to one account.--Jusjih 02:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I can accept this as current consensus of opinion, and abide by it as an indication of the current situation here; but I also assert I have the right to post many of the reasons I continue to dissent on the ultimate of propriety of such restrictions, and eventually post arguments as to why they should eventually be removed. The current blocks which I assert were improperly and needlessly placed on my home IP restricting my access to editing, have prevented me from engaging in recent discussions and activity so fully and vigorously as I would wish, but as a decision has at this point been determined, I am willing to agree to restrict my editing to a single account, until such time as I can convince the community that such extreme restrictions should be removed or reduced. Such activity on my part is not actually one my top priorities at the present time, and many other things currently impel my attention.

Presentations of my views on more general procedures and activities here is of increasing interest to me, as well as the general contribution of adding more material to the project, as Kalki — thus I hope that all will agree that current blocks that have been placed on my home IP are excessive and should be immediately removed. I am not sure of many of the technicalities of the matter — because I am NOT someone who is inclined to seek out many of the technicalities by which it is possible to suppress, restrict or needlessly constrain other people's activities, nor succeed in violating or ignoring many of their rights, but the current blocks, so far as I can perceive were placed on a entire ranges of IPs available from a commercial Time Warner Road Runner server, thus apparently affecting thousands of other IPs other than my own, simply to prevent a few of those available to me from editing here. I discovered this only a couple days ago, when running out of time available to me over the weekend I simply decided to change my IP from home, so that I could edit from there — as I had already clearly agreed to ONLY AS Kalki — and discovered the block was far more extensive than I had thought, or can concede to be in any way proper. Thus was I restrained from doing much I had wished to get done here — and simply went on to doing such things as were of far greater importance than dealing with the inanities and outrages which have been occurring here, some of which I have but barely touched upon in my discussions. There were other means available to get around such excessive activities aimed at constraining mine, but I had little interest in resorting to any of these, and went on to other more important matters.

Even addressing some of the damages that CIrt has apparently been motivated to inflict upon my editorial privileges here and on other wikimedia projects, through accusations and assertions which extremely distort and defame my actual editing activities are not a top priority, but I do eventually plan to address many issues with an extensive account of many things at User:Kalki/Chronology, among my own user pages — a chronology of my activities here and elsewhere, and others responses to them, whether positive, negative or non-committal — including very definite and extensively revelatory commentary upon many of my motives and considerations for disclosing or not disclosing much information in the past. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 08:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Kalki now has IP-block-exempt. This means Kalki can edit with his account, even if IPs are blocked. This will obviously be revoked if Kalki is blocked again in the future. -- Cirt (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Adopted the community consensus that Kalki is limited to one account.--Jusjih 02:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Kalki granted IPblockexempt, this will be revoked if the main account is blocked again in the future. -- Cirt (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

KALKI ARCHIVE PAGE NOTE: The above comment by Cirt was posted at the head of the village pump section beneath a hide-show tab to hide the rest of it. I have often sought to hide much that I truly felt need not be revealed, or would be more harmful than good to all to reveal, but I reveal with candor what I feel it is best for all to become so aware of as possible, and I honestly believe that Cirt seems intent on hiding, removing and obscuring far more of far more significance and relevance to many matters than I ever have — I place his comments here at the end of the section to which it was appended at the top, so that all comments remain in view. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 17:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Please stop restoring sock pages

Kalki, please stop restoring content of sock pages, as you have done multiple times now, at [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. These are socks, that were created as part of your 200-plus massive sockfarm across multiple different Wikimedia sites. They are not userpages for your decorative purposes. They are tagged sockpages. Reverting back removed content and confusing other visitors to those sock pages with large amounts of coding is disruptive. Please, do not do this again, as it is quite disruptive and inappropriate in nature. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" ~ Joseph N. Welch to Joseph McCarthy

YOU, sir, are clearly exceeding both rational and official capacities of behavior, and are clearly passing into the realm of extremely contemptible and deliberate harassment, genuine disruption of efforts at honest and fair communication between others, and gross presumptions of human decency in your most imperious and dictatorial behavior. I have little more to say at this time, beyond the fact that I had been grateful that FloNIght had proposed a measure which I thought might mitigate any immediate need for a far more thorough confrontation of your tendencies towards contemptible aggression and pillaging of efforts to do more good than your apparently narrow bigoted little mind can comprehend, but I might have been mistaken. ~ Kalki 22:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Kalki, I apologize for Cirt's actions to the extent it was done in my name ("the community"). Someday I am going to learn how to deal with such primitive behaviours, and then I will start contributing to the world! N6n 15:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Main page QotD

Please note that the main page today, All Hallows 2010, is displaying last year's Wikiquote:Quote of the day/November 1, 2009 instead of the current Wikiquote:Quote of the day/November 1, 2010 because someone has altered {{Main Page Quote of the day}} and other components of QotD processing. To avoid disruption of the process, you will either need to adopt the new method (and complete its implementation) or to roll back the changes that were made. ~ Ningauble 00:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Please revert the changes Cirt recently made to the Template:Main Page Quote of the day page so it doesn't display last year's misplaced page. I do not presently have sufficient editing privileges to take care of the matter. As you or someone else noted earlier in the month the changes he made to the templates seem to have NO clear positive affect or advantage, and I clearly perceive many detrimental effects to them which I had intended to note soon. I actually did not expect the changes made would actually have such effects as these so soon, but anticipated the changes would have to be reverted. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 02:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Done, as a quick fix pending further discussion at Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day. ~ Ningauble 18:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Community sanction - Restricted to one account

You are restricted to one account, by result of community sanction determined after consensus from Wikiquote:Village pump discussion, and determined by Checkuser Jusjih (talk · contributions), here diff link. -- Cirt (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

IP block exempt

You have been granted IP-block-exempt. This means you can edit through IP blocks. This userrights status will be revoked, obviously, if you are blocked again in the future. -- Cirt (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, as it is clear you have taken every opportunity to insult me, defame me, block me any way you thought you plausibly could, whether for reasons that were actual legitimate or not, or could seem so to anyone beyond a cretinous level of logic who actually endeavored to examine the situations. It is very good that what should have been the WORST case BLOCK that might have reasonably been done weeks ago is finally settled upon. I will state I definitely intend to edit pages under NO other name than Kalki here — at any time, until such truths of the ABUSES of authority and abilities that have occurred are made clear as possible and it becomes the community consensus that NO such restrictions as I currently accept should remain upon me, or anyone else not engaged in deliberate vandalism, trolling or clearly malicious defamation. I do NOT expect immediate success in this, such are the prejudices and presumptions which are obviously manifest at the present time, but I do truly believe that there shall eventually be a comedy of redemption which shall occur to put an end to this tragic farce of foul minded distortions that as yet seems to prevail here and elsewhere. Let justice be done. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 16:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Cirt, no good deed goes unpunished. Tiptoety ^talk 04:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed — in deed. The only punishing I threaten anyone with is exposure of truth such as others would rather have remain obscured, hidden, denied, or erased. They have presented ONLY such truth and characterization as they would prefer to present in order to constrain or threaten me. This comes after I have been unjustly and improperly constrained from editing, after entering into an editorial dispute with a dictatorial imperious admin apparently aiming to intimidate and willing to extremely punish any overt dissent or opposition.

In a society of criminals … the innocent man goes to jail. ~ Philip K. Dick

If you don't want a man unhappy politically, don't give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none. ~ Ray Bradbury in Fahrenheit 451.

I remain intent on a very principled dissent, against many forms of intimidation, and eventual presentation of facts that shall reveal the unjust foulness of how many things have been portrayed, and largely accepted. ~ Kalki 05:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

COMMENT by Cirt, to Tiptoey about this page and my activities:

re IP block exempt

Yeah, it seems even though I promoted him to IP-block-exempt, he still will not give up with his walls of text postings. He also appears to be compiling userspace-subpages as attack-pages - see "outrage" in title of one of them. Thoughts on what can be done about that behavior pattern? -- Cirt (talk) 05:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems my efforts to present such information as others find offensive — to defend myself against what I perceive to be blatant acts of hypocrisy, distortion and defamation, and to present my own opinions and perspectives with candor — to DEFEND my actions and perspectives — is something some would wish to characterize as merely creation of "attack pages" (by which they might further execrate and suppress free expression upon matters which I have a right to be passionately concerned). I have simply made efforts to arrange many significant commentaries in more cohesively or chronologically presented forms. Unlike some, I have long taken seriously such ideals as were indicated by Evelyn Beatrice Hall in the expression often misattributed to Voltaire: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 05:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
~ John Adams ~

FURTHER DIALOGUE on Tiptoey's talk page:

I don't see that there is any need for anything to be "done" about this at all. Kalki's lengthy postings are in the context of discussions. If he were posting them in articles it would be problem, but he isn't so it is entirely proper, even if he gets carried away in terms of length and tenor. As for his userspace pages, I see no cause for concern. Really, what does it matter what he squirrels away on a subpage? The real question, I think, is: how do we harness Kalki's considerable energy and enthusiasm for the purpose to which it was being put before all this drama erupted, that being the improvement of our collections? BD2412 T 19:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a problem with him titling the page of his choice as "outrage", and directing his postings and vitriol against other users in such a fashion. -- Cirt (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I doubt anyone else will ever look at subpages in his userspace, and his decision to title this one an "outrage" is just a matter of opinion. Frankly, I think anyone who chanced to read the hyperbolic conversations transposed there would come away with the opinion that Kalki's reaction far outpaces the import of the dispute. BD2412 T 20:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least for the most part I agree with your last sentence in this prior comment. Still think it inappropriate to call the page "outrage", the word could be removed from the title with no other impact to the utilitarian nature of the user subpage. -- Cirt (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard dialogue (October - November 2010)

Local IP block exemption for User:Kalki

An IP address used by Kalki has been globally blocked for a period of one year due to checkuser concerns about cross-wiki sockpuppet farming.[16] Although Kalki was locally blocked on Wikiquote recently, that block has expired and the registered account is nominally allowed to edit Wikiquote. Unless there is a consensus to reblock Kalki for an extended period, I propose to grant a local IP block exemption to allow Kalki to edit Wikiquote. This will only affect the one registered account, and will only be effective at Wikiquote. If there are no objections, I will be doing this soon.~ Ningauble 15:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Investigating further, this does not appear to be a global IP block or a local hard-block. It may be an autoblock resulting from the indefinite blocking of named sockpupets. Perhaps Cirt would like to clarify. I still propose to grant an IP block exemption for editing with this registered account. ~ Ningauble 18:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I suspect it has something to do with this block. And if that is the case, the block parameters can just be set to remove the auto-block on the underlying IPs. Giving a confirmed sockpuppeteer IPblock exempt just sounds like a bad idea to me. Tiptoety ^talk 20:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tiptoety, giving a confirmed sockpuppeteer that has amassed a sockfarm of over 200 socks across multiple Wikimedia project sites is a bad idea, especially when that sockpuppeteer has openly refused as recently as today, to be restricted to one account. As the IPs that are autoblocked help prevent socking, this is probably not the best option either. -- Cirt (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

@Tiptoety – That block of User:Kalki has expired, so I suspect it has to do with the puppet blocks. There are quite a lot of these blocks, so I don't think it is as simple as changing the settings on one. I do agree that an IP exemption is a questionable proposition, but I was not sure exactly how the IP block came about. Revising the block settings is probably a better solution if that will do the trick.

@Cirt – It does not appear to have been your original intent to place a long-term block on Kalki's IP connection while announcing only a one week block on the user account,[17] so it may have been an unintended effect of using default block settings. If the IP block was unintentional, would you be willing to update the settings on the many blocks you placed so industriously? ~ Ningauble 00:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The settings should not be changed on the socks, because these settings are intended specifically to prevent the sockmaster from creating new sock farms, something you should note the sockpuppeteer has refused to stop doing. -- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this is inconsistent, or perhaps you have changed your mind somewhere in the course of these events. Notwithstanding your comment at the Village Pump,[18] the settings are preventing the underlying person from editing Wikiquote. Are you saying that it was your original intention to ban the person for a year while announcing only a one week block? Are you now saying that it is ok to use the Kalki account only if the person changes IP address? Even though I have been personally aggrieved by some of Kalki's conduct myself, I would still like to treat the person in a fair and reasonable manner. I believe that means being perfectly clear and transparent about how the admin tools are being used – is this a one year ban on the person or not? ~ Ningauble 01:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

No, that is a totally incorrect assessment. -- Cirt (talk) 05:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but that response does not clarify much. However, since nobody else but Tiptoety has expressed any interest in allowing Kalki to edit, at least not by using IP connections to access the account, I guess there is no need for explanation. I have better things to do than to try to make sense of the way this project is being administered. ~ Ningauble 11:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

IP block exemption is intended to be used for editors caught under IP blocks for socking, that are not actually sockpuppeteers. Kalki is a sockpuppeteer. Kalki has refused to stop socking. So therefore IP block exemption should not be extended to a user that wishes to continue socking. -- Cirt (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Please observe that everyone participating in this discussion had shifted to considering modification of the IP block settings rather than giving a blanket IP exception. If you have nothing constructive to say about the two related questions of whether and how the person known as Kalki might be allowed to edit Wikiquote using the nominally unblocked account then, as I said, I have better things to do. ~ Ningauble 14:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

← Finding the IP(s) that are causing the autoblock is easy enough, have Kalki post the block message that she is receiving when she is trying to edit, it will specify an IP. Additionally, running a CU on the account will reveal all the IP(s), including the blocked ones that Kalki is or has used. Being that Kalki's main account is not blocked, I would support editing the block settings to remove the autoblocks that are preventing her from editing and just like always, continue to monitor for other sockpuppets. But, like I said before I do not support granting IPblock exempt. Tiptoety ^talk 17:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Tiptoety, but wouldn't doing so also make it easier for the sockpuppeteer to create new sockfarms? -- Cirt (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Naturally, if the user is able to connect to the account then it would be easier to use, or to abuse.

It is one thing to argue for an extended block on the Kalki account, if that is what you want. It is something else altogether to make the account harder to use by blocking the IP connection of a user who is not blocked. I am not exactly sure what that something else is, but the word "harassment" comes to mind. ~ Ningauble 14:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That is laughable, no. It is merely blocking the IPs that have been used by hundreds of socks across multiple sites. -- Cirt (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The clear disposition to belittle and demean much, if not all that I have done in my seven years here, to assail it, ignore it, obscure it, make it less accessible or actually erase it and delete it, and regularly repeating the simple-minded invective "sockpuppetter", plastering that label everywhere possible, removing much material indicating much of the true character of my contributions, and implying I should simply be labeled nothing more than that for openly persisting in principled dissent against what I consider needless and largely foolish attempts of a few to dictate rules and policies which needlessly and nearly pointlessly restrict or deny long available freedoms here, is quite obviously a case of rather extensive harassment, and I had actually planned to state that myself in rather sterner terms.
I do consider it quite a notable case of harassment and intense bigotry — that being indicated by an apparent unwillingness and even incapacity to acknowledge nearly any merit in one's adversaries, and I glad that I am not the only one who has thus far taken note of that. I am quite willing to acknowledge many points of apparent or actual merit in arguments of my adversaries where they exist, and yet I certainly am not willing to grant to anyone that their presumptions of their positions as exclusively or even primarily ones of merit are anything that anyone else need accept.
To put my adversary's mind somewhat at ease, though I can be harshly critical of much which I encounter, I very rarely aim to be more punitive than is clearly necessary and generally beneficial, and I myself am certainly NOT going to call for his de-sysopping for much recent behavior I consider a far WORSE abuse of admin abilities than anything I had ever even been accused of doing. Even so he has been so intent on emphasizing and exaggerating much that might be reasonably or unreasonably said against me, that I am going to vigorously point out some of what I consider to be his deliberate deceitfulness and destructiveness of much that is good and desirable, and why I consider it such.
I am only briefly responding now from another person's computer, and have not had so much time or opportunity today to work on things here as I thought I might, but shall continue to intermittently prepare material for eventual presentation here on my own computer, concerning some of the issues recently raised or revived. Much that I have been working on regarding other tasks than those presented here are actually such things as being completed, will permit me to speak with much greater candor on matters here, and I look forward to doing so quite soon, in coming days and weeks. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 03:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

This matter does need to be sorted out in order to get the best outcome for the Community. I agree that editing restrictions are needed, and the previous accounts need blocks. Thank you Cirt for doing these blocks. But since Kalki regularly makes many good edits, I would prefer to find a way to keep him editing on Wikiquote. I'm not certain that we need to continue with the lengthy blocks of the ip addresses especially if Kalki will agree to edit with one account. I'm still hopeful that we will get this agreement from Kalki once the Community speaks to him about the concerns that arise from using multiple accounts. So I want to see how the discussion goes on the VP and his talk page, and see if we can come to an agreement that will fix the situation without lengthy blocks that might cause collateral damage by the lengthy blocks of the ip addresses. FloNight ♥♥♥ 12:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Kalki has refused such an agreement. The community is discussing an ongoing proposal to restrict Kalki to the use of one account. Please see: Wikiquote:Village_pump#Kalki_restriction_proposal. -- Cirt (talk) 03:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard dialogue (November 2010)

"Idiot Alert"

Please see [19]. I believe it is inappropriate to use such language to refer to any user on Wikiquote. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The epithet "idiot" certainly seems outside the bounds of civility (and, looking at the more explicit policy at Wikipedia, to fall under the "Rudeness, insults, name-calling" provision). Increased experience would call for a higher standard, not the reverse. -Sketchmoose 17:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. What should be done about this? -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

We should formally adopt the policy as written at Wikipedia and apply it prospectively, beginning with a warning that such incivility should be avoided. On the other hand, in the case of certain edits by this particular IP, the sentiment is understandable, if not warranted. BD2412 T 16:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the current policy at Wikipedia is better than the latest draft for Wikiquote, although I think both of them digress and belabor the point more than necessary. ~ Ningauble 16:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

We can always adopt the 'pedia policy subject to our own changes in the future. BD2412 T 16:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I cannot agree using the word "idiot" to that specific IP based on its edits. Better warning could be done.--Jusjih 04:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Great, so we are unanimous that a better warning could have been given, and that this type of behavior by the user that gave the warning was inappropriate. -- Cirt (talk) 11:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

As Cirt has given so much intense attention to my activities lately, I am sure he has not missed the fact that I had been developing responses to this latest controversy regarding them, which I had been preparing on my newly created page Vox Box and on Chronology, though he makes no mention of this. I certainly would like my comments noted before a decision is made:

23 April 2010 : Though in my own thought processes and many private conversations, I most commonly and regularly refer to all people as angels — in the sense that they are ALL messengers of many forms of significant truth, I also sometimes refer to myself and all others as idiots — in reference to our innately limited capacities to appreciate and honor such facts. In response to increased levels of idiotic vandalism that does not receive an adequate response after several incidents, and no longer having admin tools, I develop a more strongly worded assertion of testimony of the abuses evident on the part of vandals and other idiots of low comprehension, who have not responded to more mildly worded messages. I fully understand that "idiot" is often used as an appropriately intense epithet of condemnation of people who have engaged in contemptible behavior — and certainly do not repudiate its use in such a context, and use it as such, but I have also long used it in a much broader context, whereby even the most intelligent and truly wise of people can be properly and quite safely be called idiots. I have long noted that the most wise of idiots don't much mind being called idiots by other idiots, and often delight in good-naturedly calling each other idiots to keep each other humble, and as actually a show of respect of their strength of character to take little or no offense at such displays of fondness and trust of their ability to transcend any absolutely contemptible implications of the word, while the least wise take intense offense at it, totally immersed in resentment or distaste for its most common connotations. As with other very versatile and often used words, I have also noted that many in the most conniving and hypocritical states of confusion often only take offense at the use of many terms to the extent it is convenient to their own personal aims to do so. Many of these who most strongly object to such words actually go about treating others as infantile idiots who are entirely incapable of developing strength of character and discernment, and must abjectly and absolutely obey them and their pronunciations of judgments — or be severely punished for their defiance of their will and presumptively superior forms of idiocy. I did not so extensively note such things in the comment itself, but I did give some indications of such ideas — and used it quite often for months, with no objections arising from it, and even some mildly amused and respectful responses from those vandals on whom it was used. In November 2010, it was cited as something that should be censured — I do not agree, but I can agree to refrain from using it, until after a period of discussion some acceptable revision of it can be found. Here is the version which existed since 23 April, as of 8 November 2010:

This IP address or username appears to have been used by such an idiot as takes pathetic delight in vandalizing pages of a wiki, and thus someone oblivious, ignorant or even in denial and opposition to some essential truths of Reality. May all such idiots eventually be healed of their time-and-life-wasting delusions, and may all the worst forms of idiocy with which they are afflicted come to be diminished by greater levels of awareness of vitally important truths, through the help of people honest and compassionate enough to humbly and courageously declare their particular forms of idiocy to actually be idiocies, and not charming or admirable ones at all — save to people in various states of extreme idiocy. This message is not intended to be an insult to anyone's intelligence, but rather an indication that I suspect some people might actually have more intelligence and capacity for wisdom than they have thus far exhibited in their actions, and to give notice that if anyone wants to experiment responsibly, they can use the sandbox.

Wikiquote exists for the collecting of notable quotations of famous people and famous works. For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote:Wikiquote, and also What Wikiquote is not for a list of common activities that Wikiquote does not support.
Adding patent nonsense to Wikiquote is considered vandalism. When people are not interested in responsibly contributing to the development of the project incidents of their deliberate vandalism can result in their usernames or IP addresses being blocked from editing.
With such honest declarations I am resolved to send what blessings I can, even to some of the more irritating of fools. ~ A fool called Kalki (talk · contributions) 07:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hidden after the peace symbol is the phrase: "Let there be Peace with Truth, and thus such Honesty, Compassion and general Wisdom as can only grow with respect for Truth."

I could of course make that statement more obvious and easily visible (and perhaps my generally broader use than that of most of the terms "idiot" and "fool" more explicitly apparent in some revision of the message), if that is actually required to prevent it from being construed as being too severe an insult to people's intelligence. I actually consider some people's efforts to totally proscribe such words as "idiot" because of their own very limited comprehensions of their meanings and applicability a far more severe insult or slighting of the intelligence and potential integrity of others. I persist in asserting my right to assert that all people are idiots as well as angels with many forms of truth to deliver to each other in both harsh and gentle ways — and that the most wisely angelic idiots don't seek to constrain others too narrowly to their own inclinations. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 11:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Update: This is not an isolated incident. Kalki has made a practice of doing this across tens of user talk pages. See for example, [20], where he refers not just to vandals, but to other Wikiquote users in this same fashion. -- Cirt (talk) 13:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making the point of how astute your attention to Wikiquote activities have been for many months prior to your editing dispute with me, after which you went on a one person rampage of vengeance for my insolence in not giving you the craven deference you apparently expect from others in your self-appointed role as dictator of rules. I had indeed used the IDIOT ALERT since April — quite effectively it seemed — because even some pernicious vandals seemed amused enough by such candor as they had rarely encountered among face-flattering idiots of other types, to give me more respect than many such face-flatterers often have. I stand by my contentions that the term "idiot" is not innately uncivil — but dictatorial presumptions that one knows best what other people should do ALWAYS are. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 13:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Update: This is (hopefully) resolved, as Kalki has agreed to refrain from such inappropriate behavior in the future, see [21]. -- Cirt (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

As Cirt seems inclined to specify ONLY such things as he/she considers worth others attention, (such as his/her own personal will in matters, or that of others most inclined to agree with him/her, without any discussion of anyone of so trivial importance as those who would dare to be dissenters to His/Her Haughtiness), and to rapidly find ways to obscure, minimize, remove or entirely delete much that he/she finds inconvenient to allow others to consider, and has just removed my ENTIRE previous post, I am reposting only a slightly revised portion of what I previously posted, with a link to a full record of relevant discussions at my page Outrages of October - November 2010 [THIS page ~ Kalki]

The material mentioned was originally posted to my Kalki talk page soon AFTER I had finished composing and posting some of the compositions I posted above — and before anyone else but Cirt had an opportunity to respond to them. As a person of great candor I feel that if subjects are discussed, most of the actual context of relevant discussions should generally be clearly scannable by those who read them, and thus made a full provision of the section to which Cirt refers.

As I do seek to behave in an honorable fashion, I DO agree to fully refrain from alerting people in my previous manner, IF it is truly found innately unsuitable — but as my own assertions had not apparently been perused by anyone other than Cirt before he took it upon himself/herself to removing the notice, I must insist I remain intent on having some form of strongly worded messages for vandals who persist in vandalism, and whom I no longer am provided the tools to block — despite my NEVER having misused those tools in all my years of having them. A few people simply objected to a few of the ways in which the forms of my imaginative efforts, discretion and candor exceed their own, and that was sufficient to create enough suspicion and dis-ease as to prevent my retaining them after a vote of confidence last year. If others find it necessary to ameliorate the apparent harshness of such words, I could be more elaborate on my rather peculiar use of the terms "angels" and "idiots" as proper designations for EVERYONE in such a notice. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 15:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Now this should hopefully be resolved. -- Cirt (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I was just checking in here briefly, when I noticed something I had forgotten before, when in one of the top sections on the current page I saw IDIOT ALERT — which I plainly posted here soon after I BEGAN to use the notice which now has become the target of someone I consider a controversy-monger. I plainly ANNOUNCED here my usage of this IDIOT ALERT when I BEGAN to use it in April of this year, and if Cirt has only recently taken so much notice of this project which he/she so arrogantly has affected of late, with demands and revisions, as to NOT have noticed this announcement or this activity, it clearly shows how much social, rational and ethical cohesion have deteriorated since I was an admin — and one who did NOT presume to command other people without authorization — or SUPPORT such dictatorial attitudes — as SOME have done. I continue to assert that despite my somewhat odd but hardly singular use of the word "idiot" the tone of the message is far from insulting — and I assert on the whole quite extraordinarily reserved, considerate and instructive. Now that it has become the subject of controversy, I might actually wish to modify it slightly in the future, to make more of my long-held "idiotically angelic" perspective on things more plain — but I truly believe that this message in itself does not merit censure. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 04:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

THE ENTIRE SECTON BELOW WAS REMOVED BY CIRT SOON AFTER MY POSTING OF IT:

Use of "Idiot Alert"

This was originally posted to my Kalki talk page soon AFTER I had finished composing and posting some of the compositions I posted above — and before anyone else but Cirt had an opportunity to respond to them. As a person of great candor I feel that if subjects are discussed, most of the actual context of relevant discussions should generally be clearly scannable by those who read them, and thus make a full provision of the section to which Cirt refers.

Kalki, consensus at WQ:AN is that your use of "Idiot Alert" in such a manner, as you have done here [22], is inappropriate. Please, do not do this again. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 13:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You once again seek to close consensus to your own advantage rather SUMMARILY, as is your wont, — immediately after I posted my first addition to the page upon which it was being discussed. I certainly have no intentions of alerting idiots too severely of their particular forms of idiocy at the present time, but am interested in hearing further commentary in response to mine before accepting your summary assessment as anything other than cravenly asinine presumption. Fondly for the sake of candor, I make brief response as the clearly asinine idiot known as Kalki. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 13:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please stop. If you persist in this behavior pattern, example [23], you will be blocked from editing. -- Cirt (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The horrible behavior pattern you find so deplorable was a frank and honest assertion to a vandal who chose the monicker "Returning troll", to whom I stated:

In many ways you seem to be more contemptible than the idiots who have seen to it that I have no tools to effectively stop you from your rampage of idiocy, but actually you are beneath such contempt — you truly seem to be an idiot who exhibits little capacity to be less of an idiot than you are — and thus merely pathetic. May you one day come to greater appreciation of the importance of doing constructive, rather than destructive things with your time and your life. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 04:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

As an idiot who is strong enough to withstand being treated as if I were merely an infantile imbecile by people I must sometimes regard as truly infantile idiots, for now, I will refrain from further suggesting such a thing to those whose infantile idiocies are so prominent as to seem nearly incurable. May you learn to bless all your fellow angels in what ever pits of ignorance and stupidity you must descend to find full welcome by the saints who can descend or ascend with ease, and may you be granted forgiveness and pardon for whatever transgressions of simple human decency you reasonably can be forgiven and pardoned. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 13:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

As I do seek to behave in an honorable fashion, I DO agree to fully refrain from alerting people in my previous manner, IF it is truly found innately unsuitable — but as my own assertions had not apparently been perused by anyone other than Cirt before he took it upon himself to removing the notice, I must insist I remain intent on having some form of strongly worded messages for vandals who persist in vandalism, and whom I no longer am provided the tools to block — despite my NEVER having misused those tools in all my years of having them. A few people simply objected to a few of the ways in which the forms of my imaginative efforts, discretion and candor exceed their own, and that was sufficient to create enough suspicion and dis-ease as to prevent my retaining them after a vote of confidence last year. If others find it necessary to ameliorate the apparent harshness of such words, I could be more elaborate on my rather peculiar use of terms angels and idiots as proper designations for EVERYONE in such a notice. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 14:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

>>>> THIS ENDS THE SECTION DELETED BY CIRT / The following section is concurrent posts to my Talk page: <<<<

Reposting entire contents of sect from your user talk page to AN

Please do not repost entire contents of your user talk page to WQ:AN. There is no reason to do so. You can simply provide a link between the two. This takes up less space. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It certainly does take up less space but certainly allows people to remain far more ignorant and easily confused about the actual context of discussions, as crafty manipulators of people's opinions and prejudices often choose to specify such portions of a discussion as are most amenable to their own positions, and keep much else rather obscure. I tend to deplore such practices as cravenly deceitful. I recognize one cannot post massive posts in such a manner but shorter posts of a few paragraphs seem an appropriate provision for proper assessments of such an issue. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 14:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

From your past behavior, you have not yet shown you are able to post succinctly, but thank you for not reposting this again. -- Cirt (talk) 14:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

>>>> THIS ENDS THE SECTION FROM MY TALK PAGE <<<<

Further Dialogue

Arranged chronologically by starting points.

Curious

: FURTHER DIALOGUE on User talk:BD2412

Curious how you came by to find my posting, at User talk:Tiptoety, and then showed up there? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Kalki copied it on his own talk page (also his prerogative, I guess), which I've been watching. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be useful for you to take some time to back away from so closely and heavily monitoring the situation that you feel the need to pop up and appear not just at Village Pump discussions, or Kalki's talk page, but also other users's talk pages. Cheers! -- Cirt (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm just trying to introduce a dose of proportionality to the situation. If Tiptoety doesn't care for my commentary, I suppose he can delete it from his talk page. BD2412 T 20:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but must you do so across multiple pages? It seems a little bit creepy that you popped up like that, is all. Cheers! -- Cirt (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, it's a wiki (makes creepy wiki noises). To be honest, I've had my fill of the whole situation. Keeping up with all these posts is tiring! Also, I have a huge quote-importation project in the works to fill my time. ;-) BD2412 T 20:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You've had your "fill of the whole situation", and yet showed up to post over at User talk:Tiptoety? Seems a bit contradictory. -- Cirt (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well now I have! BD2412 T 20:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(Though I'll add that the issue you raise at User talk:Tiptoety is a general purpose question for which we should have a community standard, and not a Kalki-specific problem). BD2412 T 20:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It is both. -- Cirt (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It can't be both, the latter subsumes the former. BD2412 T 20:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes it can, the former goes to a specific inappropriate behavior pattern. -- Cirt (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

KALKI provided COMMENTARY on behavior patterns:

The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs, and explosions, and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, ideas, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy. A thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own for the children and the children yet unborn. And the pity of it is, is that these things cannot be confined to the Twilight Zone.
Rod Serling, in The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street (4 March 1960), a first season episode of The Twilight Zone

Request to move your userspace subpage

Posted at my talk page ~ Kalki

Kalki, can you please remove "outrages of" from the title of your created userspace subpage, User:Kalki/Outrages of October - November 2010? The page will function just as fine if it is titled: "User:Kalki/October - November 2010." Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I am sure it would function quite fine in suppressing much potential interest in an honest discussion of opinions, prejudices and presumptions at work here. I find the title entirely appropriate. You might well chose to deem my behavior as outrageous or even more outrageous than I deem yours — as you found it appropriate to SUMMARILY block me entirely for a week after I entered into an edit dispute with you — something normally reserved for ONLY extremely outrageous behavior. You persisted in insisting that the blocks you placed on my IPs that prevented me from editing at home after that expired should not be removed — obviously necessary in your opinion to prevent further outrageous behavior on my part. Mea culpa — I confess — from your perspective it seems my candor and honesty MUST be outrageous — even as your behavior and attitude continues to seem outrageous to me. THUS the title is entirely appropriate — and time will tell who actually is considered to have acted most outrageously by other people, when all presentable facts are disclosed. SO IT GOES… ~ Kalki 22:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)