The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.
The result was: Result is removal of administrator and bureaucrat flags. Closed by Jusjih at 02:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)..[reply]
On votes, everyone is welcome to comment but only established editors' votes and opinions are weighed.
Voting started at 21:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Prior Vote of confidence on this project was Wikiquote:Votes of confidence/Cato, Poetlister and Yehudi, which also dealt with the issue of sockpuppets used by an admin. Per WQ:VOC, at least three established users must have supported a Vote of confidence before one can be called. This has been met . Restricted access depends on the continued support of the community – a simple majority (50%+1) must support the user's continued access of the above-listed rights for it to be retained. The user may not use the restricted access for any non-trivial action at any time until the vote is closed. Cirt (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As most of you who will be voting I hope are aware, the "Prior Vote of confidence" not only "also dealt with the issue of sockpuppets used by an admin", but with an admin deliberately and fraudulantly misusing multiple accounts, an issue which I had stated remained a significant and unresolved issue, when I declined to support Poetlister for bureaucrat — against the acceptive inclinations of most others.
Though it has sometimes recently been implicitly or explicitly disparaged, my appointment as an admin in January 2004, prior to my actual election as a bureaucrat in March 2005 was not something actually controversial at the time, though it might seem something which "should have been" now, to people unfamiliar with the early development of the wikis — but for the first year or two of this project there were probably many periods of days or weeks at a time when the only "regularly active community" was me, and I did much daily maintenance of it, with much solo work against vandals and spammers, as I went about constructing the site, and paying little attention to "rules" beyond common sense ones, and those explicitely stated on Wikiquote:What Wikiquote is not, which was about as an elaborate and detailed a formulation of policies as I had any desire to work on. I have a strong aversion to impeding others in any ways that are not clearly necessary and proper, and I hope that is very evident by my long term activity here. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 09:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. There is no special Kalki provision in our policies.
You indicate that you are using these accounts because you find it a meaningful way to express yourself. Since you have given no compelling reason for using a single alternative account, I see the deceptive comments that you made to cover for the massive number of accounts as very problematic.
Previous attempts over the past few years to discuss this with you has gotten a hostile response instead of the needed self reflection about how to resolve the matter. Refresh your memory about your exchange with Jeff Q in 2007 about a few accounts he noticed and brought to your attention. Your use of a vast number of accounts could have been resolve in 2007 if you would have communicated well with the other established members of WQ then. Even now I do not see you acknowledging that this situation is the result of problems solely coming from your actions. I really do wish that you would self reflect about the problems that editing with a large number of sock account is causing all across the Foundation wikis. In my opinion, your lack of recognition of this point is going to cause you more problems in the long run. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fully acknowledge that many of my actions and honest assertions have caused me problems, and have been done without much regard for people's likely interpretations and perceptions of them, and that I might have been deliberately deceptive in a less than entirely benevolent way on a few occasions, but my aims are ultimately not antagonistic towards people, but only toward the continually growing efforts of people to command, control, regulate and regiment other people in ways that violate the proper spirit of Liberty and maximal freedom of activity, which I feel etirely appropriate, within the declared tasks of making an interesting and admirable compendium of Quotations. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 12:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bottom line:You have set ideas about how you want WQ articles and policy to be written. And instead of using one voice to persuade other people, you used many many separate voices to state your case or implement your ideas through editing. This practice is a fundamental violation of wiki consensus building process whether it happens during formal votes, or in informal discussions, or while editing articles. That is the reason that it is important for alternative accounts to be rarely used and properly labeled when it happens. Especially important for the alternative accounts used by admins and other wiki functionaries such as 'crats, Checkusers, Oversighters, and stewards. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bottom line: I have made some mistakes and errors, MOST of them accidental, and NOT deliberate, even though I know it would be impossible to prove that. I can yet give what honest testimony I can in regard to many of the questions raised, and assert that I certainly have never claimed to be perfect, nor in any way asserted or implied that I expect perfection of others, let alone demand it of them. This is part of my abhorrence of the rule-making and rigorous rule-accepting and rule-enforcing policies that are so common among people. As there are no perfect people, far less are there any perfect, incorruptible rules, and my experiences have been that most rules, when treated as absolute imperatives, even when designed to be fair and just, usually result in many forms of tremendous injustice. I advocate policies of skepticism towards people's assertions — BOTH good and bad about others, and not any credulous or simplistic judgment. We are all bound to act upon our own particular levels of awareness, ignorance and confusion — but the wisest among us, I hold, are generally most tolerant and acceptive of the frustrating ignorance and confusion of others, and seek to help others build, so much as they are able, upon their awareness. This is not always an easy task. As I have loved studying significant quotes all my life, I will close with a couple, which I had intended to use in other remarks:
Do not think me gentle because I speak in praise of gentleness, or elegant because I honor the grace that keeps this world. I am a man crude as any, gross of speech, intolerant, stubborn, angry, full of fits and furies. That I may have spoken well at times, is not natural. A wonder is what it is. — Wendell Berry in "A Warning To My Readers"
It is not because angels are holier than men or devils that makes them angels, but because they do not expect holiness from one another, but from God alone. — William Blake, in "A Vision of the Last Judgement"
I do seek to promote attitudes that are less judgmental, and more reserved and exploratory, but even though in life, most people can see I am normally quite calm, charitable, and in control of whatever anger I might have at certain frustrating circumstances, that is not what will always come across in printed words. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 13:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kalki, it is my view that your style of communication of using long blocks of text, meaningful quotes, and images is a hindrance to you making your case here. When I was reviewing your contributions I noticed that using this method of communication over whelmed people opposing your views. People gave up communicating about a matter in frustration about how to respond to the posts. So it mostly likely seemed successful way to get the response you wanted. But I don't see that happening now. Instead, I see it causing people to overlook the explanations that you are giving. Just a thought. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have delayed departing up until now, but I will communicate what I believe to be significant truths and points in whatever manner I can, upon issues that do matter a great deal to me. I do not see that this is a quality that is entirely deplorable. I noticed you removed some unsourced quotes from the Wendell Berry page, as is proper nowadays, but I took the time to source one of them and add another, which I have now added to the page. I do love working here, and have much more I intend to address in coming days, as I do believe we all have much we can learn from each other in rigorous debates, but I actually will have to be leaving pretty soon now, so there might be at least an hour or two coming up where I won't be making any responses for a while. I'm farily sure that won't disappoint you a great deal. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 14:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fully endorse the "bottom line" principle (as amended) espoused by FloNight above. Although the current policy "recommendation" is vague, I urge Kalki to reconsider its ramifications. Even if profligate polynymity is not deliberately used to seek undue influence over the community, just such distortion is inherent in the practice. I believe it is important for members who are recognized by the community to stand and be recognized as members of the community. Community subsists in the interaction of recognizable members: without recognition there is no community. ~ Ningauble 14:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though I would prefer NOT to require such things of people in general, as I continue to assert the right to pseudonymous edits should be preserved and protected, after all of this hyper-attentive focus on many of my accounts, and speculations and presumptions about why I might have created them, despite my aim to simply use them for relatively innocuous purposes, If it actually became required of me that I identify any accounts which I henceforth use as mine, I could probably agree to that now, save perhaps for 1 account which I might not use again at all, save perhaps from a site remote from my normal ones, to do uncontroversial edits to its own user pages, to remove some personal information. Still, the way things are going with circumstances here, and those expected by me to develop elsewhere, I might soon become fully identified to many others, against what would have been my own wishes, within a few months, and then I might possibly simply go ahead and use the account identifying me. I think that is a precise enough summary of my expectations in some regards, and an honest one. I could state more of my experiences and expectations, in regard to many matters, but do not perceive that this is something absolutely necessary at this point. I simply am a person who is intent on doing what good I can in the world, and had been intent on doing it as anonymously as possible, for many diverse reasons. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 22:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I requested Kalki refrain from using sock accounts during this Vote of confidence proceeding. Kalki refused to abide by this request: . Cirt (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
YES, I certainly refused your request, and would now point out, that like many assertions here and elsewhere made by many of my accusers, you are attempting to place the darkest and most sinister spin on that by so stark a declaration, for the benefit of many who might not actually follow the link provided: what I actually stated was THIS:
Yes, I AM refusing to abide by your request that I cease doing something that I do not perceive to be either mandated, nor in my own best interests to promise, AS IF I were acknowledging, or accepting that it should be mandated. I had already agreed, to FloNight, I believe, that I won't use any usernames that I don't openly reveal and mark as my own, and have already indicated I would continue to mark and confirm some accounts listed as my own. There are quite a few to go through, and I certainly didn't acquire them all in a short time, and it will take me time to mark them all properly. I won't be able to respond to everything done here today, because I will probably be leaving at least a couple times for at least an hour or so each time, and am actually making some preparations to leave now, though I don't actually need to immediately. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 13:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AS is obvious in my statements I was NOT attempting to in some way use any sockpuppet accounts for voting, as might easily be construed by so simplistic and easily deceiving a statement as you just made, to any people inclined to jump to conclusions, and not to actually bother looking at the linked statements. Many of you seem to be intent on magnifying and exaggerating the dark implications you can make of anything you can find which might not appear entirely Kosher in my over 6 years of editing here. I am simply trying to do what I can to proceed with my work to the benefit of others in many arenas of activity. I acknowledge I have made some mistakes, but "Look to the beam in your own eyes." ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 13:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just completed some trimming down of some rather extensive notes on some perspectives which I had been typing up in recent days, "Kalki Apologia" on my talk page. It is far from satisfactory to me, but is about all I believe I can properly manage to get done at this point. I actually abandoned many good ideas, either because I knew I wouldn't have time to complete them, or because I believed it more appropriate to present some of the observations elsewhere, in the months to come. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 05:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did announce there that I have decided to simply relinquish my bureaucrat status, as I previously indicated I was inclined to do, primarily to make it plain that all I actually seek to retain is the simpler, less potentially troublesome, status as an admin, in which I could continue to perform many of the daily tasks I have long performed. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 05:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please indicate Support if you support retention of rights, and Oppose, if you oppose the user retaining the above-listed privileges.
Support the retention of Admin rights, simply to protect against vandals and continue to perform many such tasks as I daily engage in, which others would need to otherwise take on. I am quite willing and am honestly growing somewhat eager to relinquish Bureaucrat privileges as something I need not retain for my normal functions here, and to help to further demonstrate I do not seek merely to accumulate powers or official levels of status here, but to be useful as possible to others in positive ways. I had been inclined to oppose Poetlister getting those rights at a time when most of the community was inclined to support providing them, and simply abstained, as I knew there was insufficient evidence at the time to actually have clear cause to oppose. As these tools are conceivably more dangerous than simple admin tools I have no objections to relinquishing them at all, to somewhat placate the fears or worries of those who honestly do not feel they can trust me not to misuse them. I do hope to answer more fully some of the accusations or implications of deliberate misuse of any of my names in the days ahead, and I hope that I can persuade some people who might be reluctant to support, or eager to oppose my retention of admin privileges, that there is little danger of me misusing those. Whatever the outcome of this decision I do intend to remain an active and conscientious contributor to this wiki, so long as it is permitted, and proceed in addressing many forms of suspicions or resentments that might have been generated because of my odd, but NOT forbidden behavior, in acquiring so many usernames. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 22:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elsewhere on this page, and on my talk page, I actually have stated that I have already chosen to resign my bureaucrat status here, to emphasize I perceive no need for me to retain those tools, and am simply awaiting a steward's removal of those functions. I do still seek to retain admin privileges, so that I can continue to perform such daily functions as I have performed for many years. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 16:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support the retention of Admin rights. I have held back on entering this discussion for a while as I read what others had posted (including Kalki's entries here and on other pages) and gathered my thoughts. While I do not disagree that the use of the multiple identities can be problematic and even offensive to some, I do still believe that Kalki holds the project in the highest regard and would continue to serve it well as an admin. However, I do share the desire that others have professed for a bit more transparency (which has been brought about as a result of the current situation). There have been times when I have had discussion with some of Kalki's alter-egos that I would classify as decidedly unfriendly and even confrontational that I would not like to experience again (from any user, let alone an admin). That being said, I still do not believe that Kalki has ever compromised the integrity of the project by performing any action that intentionally hurt the aims of Wikiquote. Throughout my time here, as both a user and an admin, I have often relied on Kalki as a source of help, clarification, and inspiration. Although I have considered the words of others here, I still do not feel that any of the denigrated behavior has damaged the project apart from perhaps not living up to the standards to which people hold admins. That may be, but I again would offer my support vote for continued admin rights. I do not believe that any of this was done with deliberate malice or was in any way fraudulent. What I would like (should Kalki keep admin rights) is for Kalki to take some lessons learned from this discussion and perhaps behave a bit differently in the future, given the concerns that many in the community have expressed. But in the end, I still feel the project is better with Kalki as an admin than without. ~ UDScott 19:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the much needed support! I just got back home in the last few minutes, and read your comments. Now that many of my previous intentions have been compromised by current revelations, I currently do intend to OPENLY admit to any use of my aliases in the future, with the exception perhaps of one that I would simply use to remove some personal information on its user pages with. I have no intentions of entering into ANY disputes with ANYONE with an undeclared alias at this point, and don't anticipate that I ever will. I hope this affirmation will persuade others to support me, but as always such choices are theirs to make, based upon their assessments of available evidence. THANKS again for the support. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 22:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for retention of admin/'crat rights. Kalki has only ever done an excellent job in these capacities, and I have no doubt in his ability to continue doing so. BD2412T 22:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much for the support. I know I will be needing more though, and hope that I can convince others to accept some of my perspectives on things as for the most part rational and fair, even if not always within the bounds of expectations. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 22:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kalki retaining either the sysop or bureaucrat permissions. After looking at a fraction of Kalki's contributions I found too much problematic evidence. See User:FloNight/Kalki for the review. Especially troubling was a self request for an account rename that was stated in a way to deliberately mislead that he was the person making the request. As well, I'm concern about Kalki's response to the inquiry by Aphaia and the other checkusers. His comments appeared to shift the blame to others for making the inquiries about the accounts. His comments raising issues of harm coming from the investigation and discussion were particularly troubling. I do not believe that this attitude is compatable with continued 'crat and admin status. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kalki retaining either the sysop or bureaucrat permissions, per information I and later FloNight have corrected as well as Kalki's attitude and way of response, denying his editing way causes problems affecting several wiki-projects and have people waste their time. The ties between accounts are no information "which should have not been released" and there is therefore no violation of checkuser policy. The claim I released something wrong is a wrong accusation Kalki might be better to take down. It merely means I did something he doesn't want, and it is entirely the result of his actions, not anyone. --Aphaia 07:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This whole issue arose because I was doing something only a few people knew I was doing, and demanded I stop, merely as something they didn't want me to do, even though it did NOT violate established rules. I have contended that the names I have used were NEVER deliberately misused, and any names where such activity seemed to exist could have been openly revealed to make the points one wished to make, but the massive disclosure not merely of the numbers, but of the all of the names was neither necessary nor appropriate. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 09:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While Kalki has made many valuable contributions here, his (her?) practice of drowning any discussion of the appropriateness of his actions (on this and on previous occasions) in a tidal wave of emo and boldface is in my view behavior unbecoming an admin. We should expect admins, above all other contributors, to justify their actions (when asked to do so) with reason and conciseness; Kalki has a long history of using neither. 121a0012 03:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - While I agree Kalki has done great work here, and has contributed to much of Wikiquote's content I am afraid that does not give him a free pass to violate the rules, in fact we should hold our administrators and 'crats to a higher standard to not just follow the rules but to respect them. With power comes responsibility, and with responsibility comes trust, and I am no longer able to trust Kalki with the tools. After reading over the situation, and reviewing FloNight's evidence it is apparent it would be in the best interests of the project to remove Kalki's userrights. Tiptoetytalk 18:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will not vote because I am not an established editor here. I do not believe Kalki's behavior, nor his intended goals with these accounts, are compatible with holding the role of admin and bureaucrat. When questioned about the accounts, he has made vague reference to personal harm, to telling "uncomfortable truths" (motives that are incompatible with the project goals), and has impugned the actions and motives of the checkusers who investigated and discovered the issues (inappropriate conduct for a senior functionary with advanced permissions and trust). Despite early comments that there were no problems with double-voting and such, detailed analysis shows otherwise (Evidence). If Kalki wants to continue to contribute with multiple accounts, he can do so without benefit of the sysop and bureaucrat flags. Thatcher • (on enwiki) 22:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really was not so resentful of any investigations or suspicions, as the way they were suddenly and abruptly presented, with MUCH information, that I believe could have, and should have been kept private. The numbers of known accounts, some of which I had previously provided the CUs last year could have been mentioned without actually identifying most of them. I have somewhat recovered from the shock and stresses of the initial revelations which HAVE immensely altered my plans of activities elsewhere of far more substantial concern to me than anything which might be decided in regard to this particular controversy here. I truly wish Aphaia well, and hold no resentments for her doing what she may have felt it was her proper duty to do, though I retain some curiosity as to what initiated your own apparent levels of interest in this matter, because you had indicated elsewhere that it was you who initiated the current investigations. I expect that you are for the most part well motivated also, but I do of course disagree with many of your assessments on things. ~ Kalki 22:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You had a year to deal with this privately. You did not. ++Lar: t/c 12:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also will not vote but I endorse what Thatcher is saying, completely. Kalki's behavior is unacceptable and is incompatible with leading by setting a good example. ++Lar: t/c 02:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Similarly not established as a WQ editor, though am elsewhere, hence expressing opinion below the line.) In my opinion: Unnecessary account creation; evasive answers; seemingly not listening to concerns; and disparage the messenger responses. Not the leadership that I expect. Billinghurst 11:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't care about whats going to happen here so that means my vote is neutral.(StarWarsFanBoy 19:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Although I abstain from voting, I feel concerned. I appreciate Kalki advocating the values of love, humanity, creativity and poetic license, as well as his/her numerous contributions that embellish this wiki. I can tell by experience that, for newcomers, Kalki is the friendly face of wikiquote and whatever will be the outcome of this vote, it is important to keep him/her as a contributor. I also understand that the way this whole issue has been precipitated can be quite a shock for someone who has given himself wholeheartedly to this project. Maybe we lack a bit of the values Kalki advocates. That being said, this vote handles a different issue: multiple accounts, especially by an administrator. I myself endorse the Wiki Sock puppetry policy and prefer multiple accounts being limited to a minimum: i.e. one account per contributor. --Arjen Dijksman 10:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I greatly appreciate the kind words. I do hope to be able to persuade you to change your opinion about "one account per contributor" in some arguments I present within a few days. Although I know that the task might be a difficult one, since my very early childhood, I have always been someone willing and able to take on some rather difficult, painful, or dangerous challenges. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 13:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point of having multiple accounts. It clearly has the advantage of giving people the ability to express themselves more freely under their multiple facets. However I think this advantage doesn't weigh up against the risks to be distrusted by the community and the disadvantages mentioned at the Sock puppetry policy. Moreover, I personally think your contributions will be better esteemed if you clearly identify yourself with them (like with the Apologia you wrote recently – thank you for it, I appreciated it and support the ideas presented in it). Having a single account can be compared to having one mouth or one heart as a human. It is a natural restriction, we have to live with it, but I think everybody is happy with it. And if somebody isn't, he won't ever try to acquire a second mouth or a second heart through a surgical operation. He will rather seek to improve the one he already has.--Arjen Dijksman 21:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments — I'm just getting back in after being away for a few hours. One thing I haven't probably emphasized enough is that there actually never has been a single-person single username policy, even on wikipedia — and I don't support the idea. There have always been accepted uses for multiple accounts, and for years there wasn't even much concern about things. My peculiar efforts to acquire so many for rather innocuous rather than malevolent reasons are admittedly unusual, but I could live with previous policies that did become drafted, because they were not so rigid as to absolute forbid such accounts, though I did believe they were a bit too negative about them — I really didn't feel inclined to debate the issues, and attract anyone's attention towards hardening them up even more, which might easily have occurred. I might actually go to work on writing up a few more things today, related to the subject, but I really don't feel inclined to use all that I can think of here. I might reveal more of the history of matters a bit more clearly: last year 3 CUs demanded that I agree to stop using multiple my multiple accounts (the demand was made primarily because it simply "looked bad" — NOT because I had ever actually done anything wrong with them). I was far too busy to wish to argue the matter openly, but I never accepted their proposals, and was prepared to argue upon the matter through at least a few of my lesser accounts, which I would have openly associated, if it came to that. I truly felt they had no business setting a more restrictive policy upon me, or anyone else, than anyone had actually ever agreed to as a community. One of these was a actually a person who was later exposed to have been hypocritically using multiple accounts in deliberately fraudulent ways. I accept that very few people would have any desire to have so many accounts as I have acquired other than trolls or vandals — but that is plainly NOT what I have these for, and many trolls and vandals can usually bypass any efforts to restrict their username limitations quite easily. I am actually willing to openly identify all the accounts I use, if that becomes mandated in any clear way, but I actually don't want it to become so. The matter of official username policy is as yet not clearly in contention here, as such, the matter in question here is basically should I be stripped of admin abilities because some people who aren't pleased with the situation or my attitudes towards their attitudes or demands, feel that I set a "poor example" of what an admin or bureaucrat should be. I have conceded the point before, that I make a very poor "bureaucrat" because I have never had much inclination to believe "edicts" that attempt to control people rigidly are ever the best way of doing things, but I do believe I have always made a fairly good admin. The situation is actually very complex, as most situations usually are — but I have never been inclined to pretend things were as simple as some people prefer to believe them or pretend to believe them to be. I might address the issue more later, but have to do a few things now. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 23:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the evidence shows, and you have agreed, some of your use of these accounts was for less than benevolent purposes. And your response to inquiries about the accounts was exceedingly unfriendly towards the people that were trying to sort this out. It is these concerns that are being addressed in this vote. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "evidence" you present clearly shows simply that I have used many accounts over the years — and that out of all of these you have been able to find only a VERY few incidents of even clearly questionable motivation, which you have attempted to label as clearly improper. If you truly could go so far as to honestly declare that all your statements, often made with such disdainful tone of condescension are made without any less-than-entirely-benevolent purposes I might simply have to rather silently sorrow at your levels of obvious and oblivious hypocrisy, rather than merely being somewhat compassionate as well as somewhat harsh in honestly declaring that I am somewhat irritated by them. That I have not responded with an absolute and unwavering geniality towards those involved in what I perceive to be many levels of hypocrisy and sometimes apparently deliberate deceptions regarding my actions, which to a very great degree have exaggerated or distorted the levels of callousness I might sometimes have exhibited toward others perceptions or assumptions, without regard or awareness to any of the context, is hardly to be considered surprising. You state that my "response to inquiries about the accounts was exceedingly unfriendly towards the people that were trying to sort this out" — I believe that my private responses to individuals were not "exceedingly unfriendly" in any way, until the "sorting out" became what was apparently an act of concerted public defamation, sometimes implying that I might in someway perhaps even have sought such extreme control over people's will and behavior as I actually vigorously oppose, which I had to publicly respond to. I believe that I should hardly expected to be entirely pleased with the situation.
Neither here nor elsewhere have I even begun to fight with the fullest measures of vigor I am capable of employing against the forces of ignorance and confusion which I perceive at work in many people's attitudes and actions. There is and remains clear signs of pronounced hostility and presumption of evil motives and aims to my act of simply exercising more freedoms than they are able to as yet regard as either useful or necessary, and unfortunately also an apparent indifference to the punitive suppression of freedoms which I perceive to be useful, and which have NOT been forbidden by any formalized mandate.
Though I confess that I am somewhat disappointed that no one yet has had such will as to side with me in opposing my loss of admin abilities, which would effectively limit my ability to daily serve it in many ways, this project is NOT my major field of contention in life, and merely serves as one worthy endeavor to which I have given nearly daily attention for several years of my life in effort to protect it and develop it — without seeking to unduly exclude or limit new forms of innovation by others. If none see this as sufficient counterbalance to some of the appearances and most negative interpretations that can be put upon a VERY few of my past actions over the years, I can accept this as a very unfortunate event, and mourn for the clear loss of dignity or prestige others may eventually come to suffer thereby, far more than I can for any which others might perceive me to have lost.
It may often be noticed, the less virtuous people are, the more they shrink away from the slightest whiff of the odour of un-sanctity. The good are ever the most charitable, the pure are the most brave. ~ Dinah Craik
Some have criticized the length of my responses — they often actually barely begin to touch upon all the issues I perceive to have relevance in many of these matters. I do actually admire people in all fields of investigative endeavor, and do not seek to belittle actual investigations, though I actually must honestly belittle many assessments and interpretations that are often made. It is your certainly your right and that of others to suspect and investigate me — it is certainly my right to criticize many assessments or absolutist judgments which have been made.
We have heard much of Faraday's gentleness and sweetness and tenderness. It is all true, but it is very incomplete. You cannot resolve a powerful nature into these elements, and Faraday's character would have been less admirable than it was had it not embraced forces and tendencies to which the silky adjectives "gentle" and "tender" would by no means apply. Underneath his sweetness and gentleness was the heat of a volcano. He was a man of excitable and fiery nature; but through high self-discipline he had converted the fire into a central glow and motive power of life, instead of permitting it to waste itself in useless passion. ~ John Tyndall
One investigator who I greatly respect, despite some forms of his investigative and interpretive incompetence was the psychologist Wilhelm Reich, who stated in regard to court orders against his investigations: Man's right to know, to learn, to inquire, to make bona fide errors, to investigate human emotions must, by all means, be safe, if the word FREEDOM should ever be more than an empty political slogan.
I have far greater respect for some of his social and psychological theories than his skills as a physical scientist and investigator, but I believe many people would agree with many assessments as he made, regarding the reasons for the disastrous rise and survival of many diverse forms of fascism, and people's indifference to the loss of Liberty and even fear of many vitally important forms of Freedom. It is always admirable when people join together to protect their own and others freedoms, or in their endeavors to produce worthy goods and services in any ways, but when they join together for the suppressions of freedoms, such as are not innately harmful (or which some eccentric fool such as I seeks to prove could possibly provide far more good to all than harmful to any), then the collective force of their will crosses over from entirely benevolent forms of strength in unity, to various levels of mild or brutal fascism.The accusations and assessments made about me have continually been presented with an air of finality or authority which I cannot pretend to recognize as valid.
Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question — to doubt — to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained. ~ Richard Feynman
If you believe any of my statements thus far are unjustly harsh toward anyone, in my attempts to defend my own and others freedoms of will and conscience on a few matters, there are far harsher expressions and observations about many forms of behavior and attitudes that I have thus far suppressed my will to declare, perceiving no need to pronounce them as yet, which I believe are entirely just. As I have stated many times in my life, I sincerely do seek to be as gentle as possible, and only as harsh as necessary — but I have always acknowledged that there are times when extreme harshness can become necessary, or clearly appropriate, and I don't believe you or many other people would disagree with me on this — though we obviously might have extremely divergent opinions as to when harshness is appropriate and when it is not. I saw your comments before posting my recent work on the Upton Sinclair & The Jungle pages, typed up some responses, and decided to calm down a bit before actually posting anything. After a short period of reflection many of my honest observations have been self-suppressed, for the sake of others, rather than any actual concern for what might be thought of myself. I might well use some of the expressions in some story where I can feel no need for actually exercising compassion for the fictional targets of some of the more stinging barbs and honest observations which I am quite capable of. Due to the relative urgency of this situation, my responses here thus far have had to be far more immediate ones rather than so thorough and well tempered as I might prefer them to be.
Even people famous for their generally calm, benevolent dispositions have been known to display anger at times or confess to feeling it in many situations. One of the identities I used had been Achilles (talk · contributions), which I had always intended to use to get into more controversies and assert some things a bit more harshly than I would wish to do as Kalki, and I stated this when I declined Aphaia's suggestion to me in that guise that I become an admin. This was long before there were actually any guidelines in place even at Wikipedia against more than one admin account, but I did not want one of my harsher guises to be granted any more apparent power or authority than necessary. My genuine desire to minimize many forms of detrimental contention is something that is hard for some people to discern, so eager are they to find fault, but I have never claimed to be entirely a pacifist, entirely calm, nor entirely willing to simply grant my adversaries every advantage they might desire to obtain in their contentions against me, though I often grant them far more than they can actually recognize. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 18:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not feel ready to vote one way or the other. Clearly running over 200 socks, even if no fraud occurred, is not conduct befitting an admin. On the other hand, Kalki is a very good editor (other than his insistence on bolding parts of quotes) and admin. There are admins on this site who are not as good at it as Kalki is, but nobody is suggesting their desysop.--Ole.Holm 22:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have not voted so far, and here is why. The matter of the usernames has been the chief issue; but it is not, to my mind, the fundamental problem. It appears that an agreement can be reached about multiple usernames: something involving total transparency and yet possibly allowing more than one name per user. Whatever we agree on, however, must be granted to anyone; it would have to be a right and not a privilege. My own opinion, in passing, is that multiple usernames are pointless and distracting; but this is not a conclusive argument against them.
And yet there is another matter in which, I feel, no agreement with Kalki will ever be reached. It involves the principle known as Assume Good Faith. Is there any of us who, in reading Kalki's postings, is not struck by two remarkably disparate strains? On the one hand, fervent assertions of good will, amenity, tolerance and humility. On the other hand, the most insulting assertions about the motives of those with whom he strongly disagrees. It is always possible to criticize, even sternly, the particular actions or policies of others. It is another matter, however, not to assume good faith about motives, which should rarely even be subjects for discussion. Many of Kalki's postings could almost be models for the principle of Assume Bad Faith: declaring oneself to be the upholder of Justice, Liberty, Benevolence and so on, while declaring real or assumed opponents to be the agents of arrogance, pettiness, cowardice, stupidity, power-hunger, intolerance and spite. This goes well beyond the criticism of actions or opinions: it has been, consistently and exhaustively, a contempt for other editors themselves. For an example of this, see here. Does he disagree with the copyright guidelines? Fair enough; they are, like all actions and policies, open to objections. Does he think them harmful and ill-advised? So be it; it is his right to state his views in whatever manner he chooses. The problem, as I see it, can be expressed in the following propositions:
1) Kalki has declared, in numerous posts, that those with whom he differs are authoritarian, idiotic and vindictive: motivated by a profound hatred of liberty and tolerance and desirous to gain power by demeaning others.
2. If those so characterized deserve these attributes, then plainly they are scarcely fit to be editors, let alone administrators.
3) Therefore, in what seems to me an unavoidable conclusion, those of us in question, being such warped and despicable beings, should do the decent thing and abandon Wikiquote.
Note that Kalki himself has never reached such a conclusion; far from it. It is nevertheless inescapably implicit, I would argue, in his posts. Kalki, one sees, is the hero on the white steed, tilting lances at the senseless, the insidious, the tyrannical. At the same, he wishes us to know that he respects them and bears them no ill will. I can fully believe, in good faith, that he believes both things. As a matter of good faith, his motives do not even concern me. And yet these mutual claims are irreconcilable. No matter how many assertions of amenity and respect he professes, he has characterized the motives of others as so vile that I cannot imagine why we should believe that the people so vilified should hold any positions of trust, here or elsewhere. If words are to have any meaning, I would maintain, as a matter of plain common sense, that we cannot be worthy administrators and be, at the same time, arrogant, power-crazed, liberty-hating, petty-minded, spite-maddened would-be oppressors. We must be one, the other or neither. So the real question is not simply, whether Kalki should continue to administrate; it is whether he believes that those who differ from him so much should administrate as well. I assume, yet again on good faith, that he means everything he has written; he has said, indeed, that he could say a great deal more in condemnation. I have no trouble at all in believing this. His freedom to speak as he wishes is not in question; but like anyone else, he must expect what conclusions can be reasonably drawn from what he says.
So here is my dilemma. Which Kalki am I voting for? The good and capable administrator; or the insultingly judgmental administrator? One must, evidently, have both; but I cannot choose both. And so, then, for the moment, I choose neither. - InvisibleSun 05:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You make some good points. I would say you have to weigh the whole thing, in total. Cirt (talk) 08:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just read this a few minutes ago, and will assert that InvisibleSun does make some very good points, raises some very good questions, and prompts me to make a few more decisions on how to answer them. It does seem that I will have to address a few concerns and issues in far more detail than I thus far have. Some of the assertions which I make will be very surprising to many, and I expect will confound their assumptions about many things, but I don't see how I can avoid confronting these much longer. I have now already begun to prepare a few more thorough revelations of my perspectives upon things, and why I have them. I fully agree with Cirt's statement that you have to take all appearances into consideration, but I continue to insist that there are always far more actualities at work than can ever be fully considered, by anyone, and this is one of the reasons I sometimes display impatience and aggravations with those who go about at many things believing that they know all that needs be known in passing judgments upon people. I sometimes gently and sometimes harshly will assert that all we can ever do is respond to their actions and our perceptions of their likely motives — based always upon our own limited understandings of these. We often must act, sometimes in ways that will surprise others and even ourselves — but we should always seek to take into account all that we know — never only a selected portion of it, such as would permit very easily formulated decisions as many rely upon, based upon some simplistic prescriptions. I have now begun an essay explicating a few more of my own perceptions and motives, and some of the reasons for them, but I will probably take a few more hours considering precisely how much I wish to reveal, and how much it would probably be best to continue to keep private. I have never intended to be entirely flattering of myself, and harsh merely towards others, and some of the things I state will probably make this far more plain. Recognizing that I needed a bit more time to reflect upon matters, I typed in this brief response to simply indicate that such work is in progress, and though I might take several breaks from it, I do intend to post something more here today. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 09:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doing what must be done
I have spent much of the day reflecting upon some of what I hold to have been my worst mistakes, and how much I wish to presently reveal about them, so as to counter some observations or accusations which have been made about my character and disposition, which seem to indicate that I am inclined to believe only good about myself and only evil about my critics.
I have always intended to eventually reveal some of these in incidents in much greater detail than I presently do here, and I also include some of my most significant thoughts on the formation of proper alliances and friendships with others, and ways to ably strive for the mitigation of animosities and hatreds. I remain very reluctant to reveal some of the things I which presently indicate, but after a period of long reflection, feel I should now bring them up to at least the extent I am.
There are many more aspects of my personal limitations, deficiencies and flaws I intend to reveal far more extensively, but I hope I can be pardoned for failing to be eager to presently present many of these to some people who seem eager to disregard or belittle my virtues, and to focus upon, magnify or exaggerate my apparent weaknesses.
It is not always so necessary or important to reach one's intended destination, as it is to take into fullest consideration all which you encounter. It is not always where you are going, but what you do or do not do along the way which can matter most.
Though many of those most familiar with me admire me for many qualities, I have always been inclined to assert my own limitations and my own deficiencies, flaws, mistakes and errors, against their sometimes very unrealistic expectations, about what I can do or should do.
This is a very limited account which leaves out many significant details of what I hold to have been an act of cowardice on my part, in failing to confront a very dangerous situation to the best of my abilities, merely because it would have temporarily deepened an unpleasant situation, for myself and others.
I was young and not able to drive, and several people were arguing and hurrying in a rush to make an appointment. I was not usually prone to go on such excursions, but for various peculiar reasons, I felt compelled to go on this one, despite the unpleasantness of a situation where there was intense anger being expressed at the likelihood of being late, and even at the very slight delay of a few seconds that my decision to come along caused.
During our trip we took a normal short-cut down a gravel road, toward our destination, and very near the entrance to this a small truck was parked in a very dangerous position which left its plate glass extending out into the road. The conditions of the road was very dusty and the driver had to suddenly swerve to avoid hitting the plate glass. Though the driver continued hurrying on, I felt strongly compelled to cry out "STOP! STOP!" but I remained silent. I felt we should immediately stop and take action to prevent an accident — others might not be able to swerve so fast as we did, and yet in the atmosphere of intense anger that permeated the vehicle, though my heart was pounding with complex emotions, and I became almost instantly nauseous with fear of what might happen to others, I remained silent.
A few hours later I heard that there had indeed been an accident at precisely that spot and precisely what I feared might happen — probably very soon after we had driven by — and am certain that at least one person had been killed, though I cannot remember precisely the number of people that were involved.
I never learned much more about the incident, but I consider this act of negligence on my part, in failing to insist on stopping and taking action to eliminate the clear danger that I perceived to exist to others lives the single most grievous crime I have ever committed, though there are certainly no laws which would have punished me for having failed to go out of my way to eliminate a perceived danger to others. I cannot think upon the matter without deeply grieving and wishing I had been more bold to resist social pressures to hurry on and disregard the circumstances we ourselves almost fell victim to.
I know that others might not be able to understand all the reasons for my depths and intensity of passion about many things — or my impulses to sometimes be very harshly honest, and not merely polite, and why I feel very strong impulses to oppose any constraints on human liberty, but much stems from a strong sense of responsibility to help people become aware of many vitally important things, even if the processes of doing so might not always be entirely pleasant or convenient.
There is also one incident I will mention, which is probably about the worst case of indifference to fair relationships which I can think of, from my own perspectives, where I truly feel I was very unjustly and wrongly harsh to a person, even to the level of villainy, because of my own levels of ignorance and confusion, and this resulted in his loss and my gain of something we both highly valued — and I simply gave hims something neither of us valued as highly. Even then I could have openly conceded that he behaved far more properly or righteously than i, though I felt justified for reasons that I now feel to be trivial and sorely mistaken. That was many years ago though, when I was much younger than I am now, and though if fully explained, many people might look upon the event as far more trivial than I actually do, I count it as one of the worst marks against my own conscience on the matter of Justice and Fairness.
Though I am willing to concede I can sometimes, on relatively rare occasions, be very unpleasantly harsh and even surprisingly impolite or apparently impolitic at times, I do not concede that I am inclined to be needlessly harsh or unfair to others in most circumstances. I am yet rather avidly committed to responding to expectations of some overly idealized perfection from me or from anyone else with insistence upon the limitations of everyone.
There are rather severe criticisms I have been inclined to make of some of my critics actions in regard to a few things of some significance, but far lesser blameworthiness than my own personal errors, but I will refrain from that for now, and possibly forever, and restrict this particular section to self-criticism.
Facts, Errors, Lies and Truth
Facts as well as lies can often be used to obscure, hide or deny vitally important truths, as well as to reveal them and strengthen awareness of them.
One fact I believe few would deny is that fictions can sometimes be used to reveal vitally important truths in deeply meaningful and effective ways that would be impossible with merely cold presentation of facts and opinions.
Over the years I have had many interesting conversations with people of very diverse views. In political terms I have been willing to listen to and converse with people who declared themselves anarchists, libertarians, Republicans, Democrats, socialists, communists, as well as people I have no problem at all labeling fascists, and a few rather extreme "conspiracy theorists" of various kinds.
In spiritual and religious contexts, I have spoken with agnostics, atheists, neo-pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, and many evangelical Christians of various denominations, and even a few very ignorant and confused people who sought to convince me that Satanism was simply a delightful and fun practice and the ultimate way to get ahead in life — and I have resolutely resisted any group's pressures to enlist me as a confirmed ally or acceptor of their particular creeds or suppositions, though I could usually perceive elements of great beauty and worth in most of them, which I could acknowledge and praise — but not WORSHIP, as if their ways were clearly supreme or exclusively righteous.
I have usually listened to others views far more than I have attempted to assert my own. In stating such things under one of my usernames I have been accused of being deceptive, but I certainly was not dishonest, nor maliciously deceptive toward anyone. Trying to present some uncommon perspectives on things with a desirable balance of humor, grace and tact can often be very difficult. Especially when you are clearly opposing or resisting many assumptions which many people are inclined to take for granted.
I have long been at work on developing some essays on many subjects, and a few fictional stories, largely derived from experiences and incidents in my own life and the lives of others, which I eventually intend to present elsewhere, and some of the names I acquired are simply related to some which some of these fictional characters used, and which I wanted to reserve against potential abuses. Earlier today I had intended to reveal much more about these, and typed much up, but have decided against doing so for now.
Authority and Liberty
An assessment of new patterns of social action and interaction within a vast array of competing systems of authority and and impulses toward Liberty
The wikimedia projects, have up until very recently, to a very admirable degree been largely developed by largely non-hierarchal cooperative interactions. There is increasing imitation and repetition of the what I consider to be ultimately detrimental and destructive hierarchal authority structures developing among the wikis, and I expect that I might come to be increasing contentions with people with such expectations and demands for obedience of their particular will or support for needlessly constraining mandates against the non-destructive or constructive activities of others, rather than simple assertion of their will and generally supported consensus guidelines or inclinations.
George S. Patton is said to have declared fixed fortifications were monuments to the stupidity of man — though I concede that many rules are necessary and unavoidable, I am inclined to assert that absolutely fixed interpretation of rules are monuments to the stupidity of human beings.
I am usually very skeptical of anyone's ability to develop entirely wise or incorruptible rules about anything, and have long been inclined to assert that wisely developed regulations should largely be explicitly provisional in many ways, and this is what many wiki rules long were.
There is usually a great deal of folly in even the most advanced forms of wisdom, as well as some measure of wisdom in even the worst forms of folly — and I would say that this is especially emphasized in the most advanced forms of wisdom, and especially ignored or denied in the worst forms of folly.
In many ways in recent years new processes of respectful, honest, and preferably calm and mostly peaceful contention, reform, development and evolution of ideas of what the best policies of various self-determined communities should be. These are very often small limited "local" communities — within physical or internet localities, created NOT to do harm to anyone, nor to insist that others treat them as if they had extraordinary importance and significance beyond that of others, but simply to consolidate one's own and others will and abilities to do creative, productive and protective work together.
Though I promote a great deal of respect for genuine and sincere politeness, as well as individual's rights within all truly social systems , I obviously don't consider the highest form of respect such states of tension where people are pretty much expected or actually compelled to be extremely and even excessively polite and gentle with one another. I believe that with many people a lively conviviality that involves some levels of mockery and insult of differing positions, are far more conducive to developing sincere and true states of respect, than those which are constrained to very narrow ranges of expression and contentions. I believe that such states as are too insistent on the obligation to engage in pleasantries and niceties, whether people are inclined to or not, can in their own way be just as dangerously tyrannical and idiotic as those which are openly brutal and fascist, and openly revel in being extremely hostile to many forms of individual or collective will.
I assert that no one in very well developed social groups is ever going to be absolutely obligated to reporting to or obeying any "higher ups" in some hierarchal system, though some such groups might decide to very provisionally do that, out of their own sense of duty or will. Some will be more trusted with some tools than others, but no one is given sanction to issue demands or commands of others, beyond those explicitly granted by the community.
There is much more I have typed, and considered using but this is might be all I have time to present today, and I might refrain from revealing many things as yet. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 23:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One final note: I placed such a notice as this on my page soon after becoming an admin, and it has always remained there, and I have always believed in what it says:
"I am one of the administrators here, which doesn't give me any special authority… only a bit more ability to keep others from misusing the privileges provided."
I continue to assert that I have not deliberately or knowingly misused any editing privileges provided, and certainly not my admin abilities to lock unlock delete or undelete pages and edit locked ones, or the antivandal tools for blocking users. I hope these tools can continue to be provided to me, whether most people consider my use of more than one name and some of my comments disrespectful of common expectations or not. I must be leaving now. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 23:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like InvisibleSun, I am perplexed by the situation in which we find ourselves, and find the case difficult to decide. I have absolutely no lack of confidence in Kalki's use of sysop tools, which has been exemplary. On the other hand, my confidence in the community is undermined by conduct that I believe is substantially detrimental to the project. On the other other hand <removes shoe, gestures with foot>, I am not at all happy with this venue for addressing these issues.
Firstly, as remarked above, I disapprove of polynymity except in limited cases where strict proscription would actually prevent one from improving or maintaining the project. However, because the unconstructively vague and little discussed local policy "recommendation" leaves the community using a test case to establish consensus, I must say I find it unseemly to beat the test subject about the head and shoulders, threatening to revoke privileges. I could write at considerable length on the policy question, and may do so in a more appropriate venue at a later time, but here I will only remark briefly about my perspective:
Shouting theatre in a fire and causing a panic
I take liberties with the immortal words of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. on the limits of free speech, in an attempt at humor <puts foot in mouth>, but the consequences of these theatrics are not a joke.
Between the sterility of rigid order and the vacuity of random entropy lies that chaotic borderland in which the fecund creativity of nature, life, and consciousness is nurtured. That delicate balance which permits the emergence of "community" can be destroyed either by over-constraining its constituents or by decoupling their interactions through anonymization.
I recognize and sympathize with the desire to use multiple names for didactic, polemic, and even poetic expression, but were such polynymity widely emulated, even with disclosure, I believe it would ruinous to the project. "Ruinous" is a strong word that I use deliberately, based on long personal experience with the rise and fall of numerous online communities, going back to the days of dial-up BBSs that antedated the www. Had I observed more than a minimum of such practices when I first explored participating in this project a little over a year ago, I would have considered it prima fascia evidence of an ill-fatedly dysfunctional community, and would have passed it by without further investigation. I appreciate that others see it differently, but this is the effect on my confidence in the community.
Secondly, Kalki's repeated denunciations of people's motives gives the appearance of more than occasional rhetorical excess. Regardless of intent, the consequence of giving the appearance of a systematic campaign to denounce groups of community members is detrimental to the community <bangs shoe on table>. The example to which InvisibleSun refers above is particularly noteworthy because a very good contributor and respected member of the community, whose edit elicited this display of generalized vilification, promptly vanished and has not been back since the incident. While I have no direct evidence of cause-and-effect in this case, it is nevertheless illustrative of foreseeable consequences. I would like to think that this was not the intended outcome.
In conclusion, one might get the impression from the foregoing that I lean toward opposition, but I am quite displeased with this process. I think that Kalki's continued use of administrative tools is a very desirable outcome. I also think it is in the community's interest to persuade Kalki to refrain from undermining its social dynamic with funhouse mirrors, and to refrain from sundering its membership with character assassinations. As a means of formulating or demonstrating consensus, and as a means of persuasion, this process stinks <puts shoe back on smelly foot> but I may yet hold my nose and cast a vote. ~ Ningauble 17:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I take no specific position regarding whether to keep or remove Kalki's flags, but using multiple accounts for negative purposes is too bad.--Jusjih 02:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hereby close this discussion as the majority of the voters (5 votes) want to remove Kalki's administrator and bureaucrat flags, versus 3 supporting votes, but I cannot really count Kalki's self-support due to conflict of interest, thereby reducing the supports to 2 votes.--Jusjih 02:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.