Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Kalki (2nd request)

BD2412 T 13:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination statement
I am once again offering to resume my services as an admin here, after a long hiatus, and to resume higher degree of attentiveness to the upkeep and maintenance of this project, which I once exercised as one of the most respected admins and bureaucrats here for many years. I have NO intention of EVER again seeking to become a bureaucrat as I see no NEED for me to resume those duties, and have NO DESIRE for them. Thus, I am once again repudiating the assessments which a few others have attempted to make seem definite or certain that I have ever acted deliberately in ways dishonorable or deplorable — the scanty evidence of such being a few minor incidents they found after extensive seeking for such, only in a few dubious and and I believe relatively minor edits, the most substantially suspicious of which I had made MANY years prior to their accusations, and which I believe they have used to make some of the most absurdly preposterous accusations they could subsequently generate seem credible, to the gradual detriment of my prestige here, for many years, but I believe most of these can only SEEM credible to anyone who does not actually take the time to examine much of the body of evidence of my actual activities, including these, without prior prejudice and presumptions.

Though aware of the need and usefulness of many forms of prestige, privileges and powers, throughout my life I have tended to be both amused and bemused at those who go about collecting various forms of status merely to gain greater capacity to lord over others in deplorable ways not warranted by the merit of the determinations they support or seek to establish. Whatever status I myself might have had or seemed to have, I have never been inclined to pretend any arguments had any worth or formidability which I did not truly believe them to have. This has often led to conflicts and resentments of those who believe I should support or oppose various propositions which they do — or sometimes simply because they do so, and they believe their positions should be supported without any exercise of others rights and need to examine many things for themselves and come to their own decisions, unswayed by the popularity or unpopularity which might be apparent. I have often sought to bypass such resentments and bigotries as many people REGULARLY exhibit in quite strong ways by working under various guises and personas.

Though there was MUCH controversy generated over the fact that I had long used many alternate accounts here in entirely well-intentioned ways, I continue to assert that despite the claims or suppositions of some, to use such IS and should be a properly respected right of nearly anyone who wishes to do so to make proper edits — no more innately controversial or troublesome than using an alternate IP is or should be, and I have NOT used any of these since actually agreeing NOT to do so here. I continue to maintain that ALL of my accounts and ANY IP addresses I have used have been used ONLY to responsibly contribute to this project and others — and NEVER to do harm to it, nor to the proper rights of anyone else to edit here as they saw fit — within the constraints of CLEARLY established community policies. I will state that one reason for my use of such has been to avoid having to the confront many forms and consequences of the extreme personal and partisan bigotries people can long find quite acceptable and rewarding, especially when they can ally with many other like-minded bigots in resentments or opposition to a single easily identified person operating against their particular forms of bigotry or false suppositions. I do not like to target specific bigots for censure, when I can reasonably avoid doing so — but also do not like providing them the opportunity for them to target me or others — as what I consider the unnecessary and improper exposure of many of these alternate accounts has done. I have long asserted that the issue COULD have been addressed more civilly and properly without such massive exposure of the names — and my own assessments of many of the actual complexities of present and past matters are still being developed for presentation to others.

Since I was a very young child I have been noted by many for my extraordinary intelligence, honesty, and determination to do what I genuinely believe to be right and virtuous, no matter what the cost to myself in many ways, and have became noted for many talents and skills over the years, which I will not presently elaborate upon, as not entirely relevant here. Yet, if there is one thing I am most prone to delight in, it is the preservation and growth of my will to provide HELP to others in various ways — whether it be in relatively mild ways as permits them to escape burdens which make them irritated, sorrowful, or severe confusions which leave them anguished and hostile to the welfare of others, or many extreme delusions such as severely threaten their own welfare and lives, as well as those of others. When I myself have failed to adequately respond to such threats to anyone, it has resulted in my own deepest sensations of anguish and despair. In coming months and years I elsewhere intend to indicate and reveal the severity of some of these failures, as well as some of my most notable accomplishments. Before I do so I believe it may be of help to others and many of my aims to again become an adimin, here, though I do not intend to pretend that this is in any way necessary.

To enhance and develop the abilities of the wisest and most charitable, and to diminish or destroy much of the power of the most lamentable forms of ignorance and confusion to afflict human lives have long been among my most prominent goals, and because I am AWARE of MUCH of the damages done by many, I am often VERY passionate in my concerns about these, and believe that people should not be impelled to hide or apologize for their genuine passions — especially those motivated primarily by the urge to help others in vitally necessary ways, not merely to distress, alarm, or harm them in needless ways. Too often I have witnessed and observed the effects of human apathy and indifference towards many forms of truth in diminishing and destroying much of the beauty of human lives — or their very existence.

With honest passion, I believe people should never be impelled to affect any passions which they do not actually feel — and for MANY reasons I actually feel little inclination to passionately embrace any of the formulations or rules devisable by mortal minds, including my own, AS IF they were infallible or indisputable assertions of truth. I am ever inclined to assert ANY expressions, assessments or guidelines made by myself or others to be ALWAYS PROVISIONAL, even if clearly NECESSARY, at least for a time — and always subject to suggestions for further refinement in various ways, or complete rejection if ever found to be entirely inadequate for further use.

There are extreme differences between stating only so much of the apparent truth or facts as serves one's most immediate and clear goals and objectives, however personal, partisan, bigoted or hostile against the rights and dignities of others they might be, and stating so much truth as you genuinely believe will be helpful to others in discerning ways to help themselves and others more clearly. Since earliest childhood I have sought to find ways to do the latter, well aware that I would not always be able to do so effectively within various sets of circumstances, especially when many people have grown addicted or in any way dependent upon the survival and growth of many of the vilest forms of ignorance and confusion. I have yet sometimes resolved to oppose these in what ways I could, and this has sometimes been very troublesome to myself and others.

I am aware that some people might choose NOT to get involved in supporting or opposing my application for adminship, because of uncertainties which might necessarily remain in their minds as to some things, but I hope to persuade even those who might be hostile to it to be more respectful of my general stance of promoting maximal liberty in regards to anything not clearly forbidden, rather than the stances often exhibited by others that all that is not explicitly permitted should be forbidden, which because so many people can easily accept many such delusions, is often actually much more dangerous and widely embraced than the even more nonsensical assertions that all that is not forbidden by some presumptuous human authorities should be mandatory.

I often choose to quote others in accurate ways, and use imagery in evocative ways, rather than attempt to express things myself verbally, because I know that when I actually do make statements about anything, my intense will to be as meticulously honest as possible in many ways I percieve to be relevant can make my assertions rather tedious for others to read — and when this occurs I hope that this will be pardoned by others, and thank anyone for having taking the time to examine this or any other relevant statements they might choose to examine.

As a highly intelligent person, I have often observed people failing to discern such distinctions as seem obvious to me, or presenting quite false or inadequate dichotomies as if they were adequate assessments of many situations. I presently am NOT yet addressing many of the concerns of others so thoroughly as I could — for MANY reasons, and because of my current business with MANY other projects of various sorts, but if anyone doubts my commitment to improving and developing this project please examine the presentations of many of my contributions which I have gradually been developing at Kalki/index and other user pages which are accessible through the links in my signature. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC) + tweaks


 * I would like to note that I have acknowledged others complaints for the work they have chosen to do, in the course of their duties, in investigating and searching for what has passed for evidence for apparent "wrong-doing" in the past — and also that I have been the target of what I consider to be a cross-wiki campaign of harassment, defamation and slander, largely on the part of one person, which I have purposefully NOT chosen to fully and adequately contest, as yet. These circumstances have resulted in what I consider the quite IMPROPER blocking of my accounts on Wikipdeia and a couple of the other Wikimedia Foundation wikis, though NOT on all of them. That I have NOT contested the years-long efforts at defamation has NOT been in any way an admission of my "guilt" — but a sign of my utter contempt and disdain at the malicious tendencies and shallow perceptions on the part of others. Far MORE than MOST I have MUCH to resent with the activities and false suppositions of others — but I DO FORGIVE them for the ignorance and confusion they have exhibited in the past, and do not seek to penalize any others for any of their false assumptions or errors, as I have long been penalized for assuming I was dealing for the most part here with rational and fair human beings who would not be driven so much as many have been by prejudices, presumptions and resentments. One reason I wish to regain admin status here is that I might be pardoned or absolved of any past appearances of wrong-doing here, and then more effectively address my frustrations at gross injustices at past accusations of my doing anything that even could APPEAR improper to any unbiased observer on ANY other wiki. Because of the results of these somehwat successul efforts at defamation I have not even being able to do simple and useful edits on these other wikis, such as adding cross-wiki links to WIkiquote — which ABSURDLY has been used to by my most vociferous accuser as evidence of "improper use of accounts" and even "SPAMMING". Such are just a few minor indications of many of the MANY contemptible indignities which have been directed at me, and the rights of editors which I have sought to uphold, since successfully being stripped of my previous status as an admin and bureaucrat a few years ago. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 20:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

Vote ends: 19:58 UTC 21 March 2012

Support

 * Support, with some reservations. My issues with this user are more of the variety of tone and attitude rather than substantive issues with regards to behavior. I do feel that the project would be helped in the area of vandalism with the resumption of admin capabilities by Kalki. But I do still feel that much of what Kalki writes and the tone in which it is written is often a poor representation for how I believe someone representing this project should act. That being said, I do believe that Kalki holds the good of the project above all else. The state of the project is such that there seem to be very few experienced users that actually work to improve things. Despite the often tiresome rhetoric, I believe that Kalki belongs in this group of people and would continue to fight those who seek to damage the pages here. Should Kalki return to being an admin, I would once again ask that the use of overlong and overly dramatic essays when asked simple questions be drastically reduced (in fact often the impression left is that the simple question is never answered; instead other side topics are often introduced and the original point of the question or discussion is lost). This is the behavior I do not feel is truly very beneficial to the project and in most cases actually turns off those who might otherwise contribute in a positive manner. To me, that is part of what an admin should be - not just an eradicator of vandalism, but also a guiding, positive influence on other users in the community. Many of the topics on which Kalki pontificates I happen to agree with, but it is the manner in which they are conveyed that bothers me. In any case, I return to the basic question: is the project better off having Kalki as an admin? I believe the answer is yes, despite my objections to the style in which discussions are handled by Kalki. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support, and your recognition of the increase in services I could render this project, were I to regain admin tools, as well as the honest and sincere criticism of my style of presenting some arguments. I can understand such, and accept such, but would point out that most of my verbosity is usually in defense of Liberty in some form or other, and not simply to be impressive. I am quite aware that no amount of defense or argument is adequate to people who for some reason do not wish to be convinced that Liberty is worthy of more attention than they already show it, but where it is threatened to any degree, however slight it might seem, I generally do wish to show as much concern and consideration for it as I am able to, whenever I actually have the time and opportunity. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 03:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

Oppose

 * Oppose. Recently blocked for: "Incivility", see block log. Blocked as a sockmaster on en.wikipedia, see block log. History of 200-plus sockfarms across multiple projects, which has been disruptive to Wikimedia. -- Cirt (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am just briefly checking in here, as I am too busy to spend much time here at present, thus I will simply note that your opposition is hardly surprising to me, as some people will be quite aware that you are the one who has been most obsessive in doing the harassment of cross-wiki accusations against me, which have snowballed into a disgusting mass of foul distortions, deceits, and I assert, what seems to me at times to be very deliberate and outright slander. I have put up with these for YEARS, and might put up with some of them for a couple of months yet, but I intend to address some of the most despicable and false accusations far more fully in the coming days and weeks, and months ahead — and I truly intend to make MANY things far more apparent to many people in the process of doing so — which I am sure many who have long invested in lies, distortions and deceits — or been duped by them, will find somewhat embarrassing.


 * I had hoped that some of cloying lip-service you had lately given to the need of liberty and freedom of speech in service to your own peculiar aims might have tempered your views somewhat, but I cannot honestly say that I actually expected that.


 * I fully acknowledge that I have been known to be harshly honest with even those who I consider maliciously deceitful or profoundly unfair and dishonest in ways Which I know can easily seem uncivil to those who have very shallow and limited sense of civility, often easily duped by insincere niceties, and it if any true Respectfulness of Humanity of each and all is to be truly manifest in any group of people, there is a need for a far more profound respect for a devotions to Justice, Unity, Liberty, and Love of Truth, rather than Abject Obedience to those who seem inclined to dictatorial and destructive stances towards others.


 * I will note that I would rather seem an absurd absurdist clown who respects the rights and dignity of others to differ from myself, especially when they are HONEST, than someone who is an extremely intolerant of any form of honesty which is not flattering to themselves and their suppositions. I will also note that I have long sought to be far more attentive to what I consider to be Eternal Principles than passing appearances, and pathetic levels of prestige as can be had among the extremely presumptuous, and when I chose to speak at all, I either do so to help others to understand important points — or reveal to others important points in such ways as will ultimately be long remembered by others. Sometimes I devise ways to do both, and those who have seen how well I can use the force of many diverse truths when I choose to vigorously do so, come to recognize and respect the fact that truth ALWAYS ultimately prevails over forces of foul fictions, distortions and lies — even though some who have great or little capacities to bear them might long be afflicted in many ways they might choose or not choose to bear.


 * I do seek to forgive you for your extreme forms of presumptions and and apparent obsession with focusing so much on the apparent or imagined depravities and ill will of others, and whatever forms of other forms of apparent projection of desires or dreads you might regularly engage in to prompt anger or fears of others, but it is not in my power to pardon you from whatever humiliations might ultimately be heaped upon you when much fuller force of many forms of truth than you have ever wielded is finally revealed to you. I have to attend to several other things right now, but will attempt to check back in at least a couple times within a few hours. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 00:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC) + tweaks
 * Before I attend to a few other things of some greater importance to me, I will note the most recent block for "incivility" had to do with my honestly calling authoritarian behavior. attitudes and behavior "authoritarian" — and that led to a great deal of illumination of the limits of others actual levels of tolerance and honest expression, which made me realize how extremely limited were the levels of integrity of some of the people I had expected more genuinely rational and fair behavior from. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 01:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I think that Kalki is a great contributor to this project, and is often the first to confront vandalism. It therefore pains me to find myself unable to support Kalki's current adminship bid. Although it is true that Cirt has tended to be unnecessarily confrontational with Kalki recently, Kalki tends to respond to legitimate criticisms with accusations of authoritarianism, which saps my confidence in Kalki having the ability to be an arbiter of the rules necessary for the operation of a functional and goal-oriented project such as Wikiquote. BD2412 T 04:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As an absurdist I recognize and respect every person's rights to develop and express their own perspectives, but for you to characterize Cirt's behavior as "unnecessarily confrontational with Kalki recently" actually has certainly given me a VERY good laugh. Personally I would characterize it as extremely obnoxious and mendacious cross-wiki harassment which has gone on intermittently to some degree to great detriment to my reputation, and I believe to the character of this and other projects for a period of several YEARS. Of course I might be wrong or validly perceived to be wrong in various ways, either for my views or my bold assertions of them among people who have an apparent dislike for many forms of bold assertions. I might sometimes respond to what you and I both might consider "legitimate criticisms" with "accusations of authoritarianism" — but at least I have NEVER responded to legitimate criticisms and expressions of honest opinions with a block, or even preemptive blocks prior to what I honestly consider massive cross-wiki vandalism and a malicious slander-fest against many of my accounts as one of my apparently "legitimate" critics has.
 * I fully recognize others have the RIGHT to criticize such behavior, attitudes or assertions I make such as they cannot or do not yet understand, and I assert it is my right to denounce and deride any will to prevent or impede the free expressions of honestly concerned opinions as often quite presumptive and even "authoritarian." Those who are least able to stand being called anything are most discomforted by the levels of truth indicated, rather than the levels of error.
 * One can of course contest such assertions, as I have contested those against me, but I also recognize that once accusations have been made, whether made with sincere conviction of either mild or severe forms of interpretation, or largely malicious and mendacious severity, it is often hard for the accused to absolutely prove innocence. I recognized I was in for some otherwise needless burdens when the first rather presumptuous accusations were made against me some years ago. I also recognized that I was strong enough to take those burdens, and mold them into new opportunities for gradual revelation of important truths — and that is what I have DONE. I expect there to be many surprising revelations of many long obscured facts in coming months, based upon what has ALREADY been accomplished. One is certainly under no obligation to believe this, or such truths as might eventually be revealed, but here and elsewhere I am confident important truths will be made clear to many.


 * I recognize that MANY of my long time absurdist stances on things, acceptive and assertive of many diverse attitudes, as profoundly moral as I, and Camus, or  Weil, Wittgenstein, or good old Laozi, Chesterton and  Havel  and many others might consider them to be, were such as few people have sufficient intellectual or imaginative capacities to properly understand, so I chose NOT to explicitly  indicate them AS such, until  relatively recently. I am honest enough with myself and others to recognize that MANY people or most people will NOT recognize or accept the truth of much of what I and allies to absurdist ways reveal in many avenues of public exposure any time soon — but I truly expect that most people will eventually have a good laugh at MUCH that has gone on in recent years and decades — if only to keep from crying at many of the sad tragedies that continue, and surely shall continue, no matter how enlightened many people or even most people become.
 * I will repeat or emphasize a few things I have attempted to make at least somewhat clear to others in various ways for years:
 * '''Destructive vandalism or any form of disruption of others creative and productive efforts are vain, vile and contemptible forms of action which no responsible person ever actually wishes to engage in needlessly — or consents to engage in without clear need to prevent harm to something one values more — whether the engagement or disengagement is with or without the sanction or authority of any popular or unpopular power or will or directives.
 * As an avidly angelic absurdist, I embrace many anarchist ideals, as proper goals and directives even though I honestly do not expect many of them to be perfectly or completely manifested in any actual society. I consider vandalism and distortions of the ideals of non-materialistic Anarchism and Libertarianism by various authoritarians, nihilists, terrorists, tyrants and their dupes is one of the enduring tragedies of the last couple centuries.
 * To call someone an Authoritarian certainly does NOT necessarily mean that one is calling such a person the vilest from of Nazi idiot intent on genocidal practices. Authoritarians are quite often, and I believe increasingly commonly "mild-mannered" conformists who simply expect others to obey them, and the most banal herd-think and hive-mind directives, with all guises and demeanors of calm "civility" because they have attained some "badge of authority" and POWER, and thus what they consider to be the "right" to make demands on various people to NOT express or even indicate any opinions or ideas not flattering to the current manifestations of the "collective understanding". This often comes from the collective might of other "mild mannered" conformists, who insist all should be PRECISELY as "mild mannered" as they are — or people should "PAY" in some ways for NOT being so — or from such OVERT fascists as they often let deceive them with flatteries of various sorts, until they have attained such positions of power as permit them to herd others by fear and panic or various forms of deceit wherever they wish to go and to impel them to do what they might never otherwise dream of actually doing. Such behavior happens to various degrees of severity in many divergent societies, under many different names and in accord with many vile forms of discord and hypocrisy between words used and behavior meant, and those actually practiced.  I certainly do NOT object to collective collaboration — I object to MANY forms of overly suppressive behavior on the part of FEW over MANY, or over ANY, with LITTLE time or trial for TESTINGS of fairness or appropriateness of things in the long run. I believe in the right to experimentation, and for people to attempt such, and ONLY what SPECIFIC strategies as have PROVEN to be and plainly expressed to be undesirable by most should be developed into express policies. And these should generally be maintained with a gentle censure. When people are disrespectful of the views of others I am often respectfully attentive — when they are disrespectful of the right of people to EXPRESS those views, EVEN if I disagree with them strongly,  I am generally inclined to be outraged, if I cannot transcend circumstances immediately into a perspective of absurdist detachment and the grandest sorts of amusement at human stupidity and folly.
 * Whatever the results of this current TEST of current outlooks and character might eventually be, I continue to wish people well — and expect to serve this project and humanity in increasingly surprising ways in the months ahead. So it goes… Answer to Life.png Caput mortuum.svgSwirlyclock.pngSahasrara.svg ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 05:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC) + tweaks


 * Oppose because "Does not play well with others." Sometimes. Much too often. It is unfortunate because it would be beneficial to have an administrator available during the hours that Kalki is ordinarily active. We all have our little disagreements, and sometimes large ones. A persistent habit of framing disagreements in terms of Manichean struggle between good and evil, or between superultraperspicacious intelligence and basely craven human stupidity, is more than an amusingly piquant grandiosity. It is an extreme of uncivil bellicosity that has quite evidently driven good contributors from the project and deterred newcomers from participating. I do believe Kalki earnestly wishes to benefit the project, and that the deleterious conduct arises from misunderstanding rather than intent. We need our administrators to do better than this because, like it or not, the public turns to them as role models and ambassadors for the project. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Supplementary observations:  I do not doubt that Kalki is a very intelligent person, but intelligence has different forms that are often not manifested together. Kalki's manner of communications, even in the nominating statement above, very often does not display a level of social intelligence needed for what has become a de facto community leadership role. (The oft repeated remarks about people failing to discern truth or relevance in Kalki's pronouncements, with concomitant pronouncements about people's failings generally, seem to reflect an awareness of a failure to communicate effectively, and a limited awareness of how effective communication depends on relating to one's audience.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Though I am of course slightly disappointed at such a decision, there are few opinions and attitudes expressed here that I am genuinely amused at, but I will refrain from attempting to elaborate too much as to why, because I am very familiar with many of the limitations of my audiences, and of myself, and of what I am or am not prepared to reveal about many aspects of many things at this time. '''In such a statement I am of course not trying to communicate effectively so many details of of things as I conceivably could, nor to persuade others to my views — but am merely providing some indication that I intend to make further revelations and clarifications, here and elsewhere, and I genuinely do hope many people will be a bit more enlightened and amused, when many aspects of truths long suppressed begin to be indicated.
 * I will confide this much about myself — though I hardly consider myself all that impressive a speaker, and my voice a rather poor one in many ways, I have had others remark how much extraordinary rapport I develop with my audience in personal presentations, and others remark how much calm and patience I have shown with people of both low and high levels intelligence, by people who found such either frustrating or intimidating, and at one point a longtime friend remarked that he had never seen me get angry at ANYTHING. I laughed and assured him I had been angry on at least one particular occasion he witnessed, and he laughed and said, "You call that anger?" He indicated he clearly thought of it as rather highly constrained sternness. There are a few people who actually have seen me quite fearsomely and visibly enraged though — at some injustice of various kinds — and such moods usually have occurred in me out of concern and devotion to the welfare of OTHERS, and not primarily my own.
 * Though I can enter long periods of general aloofness in regard to others, I actually am quite mild and genial with most people in person, and I would say that stems from regularly entering into certain forms of profound Awareness which many do not seem to have very often attained, and also largely because I am so appreciative of the NEED for devotions to "LIBERTY and JUSTICE for ALL" — which I believe MOST people CAN and DO feel an urge to promote or support — which makes it so depressing and frustrating that in actual ACTION many give little more than vapid lip-service to this, to the extent freedoms or rights of others are not such as directly or clearly serve their personal or partisan concerns or desires, and think of it as something that can be adequately prescribed in parceled out formulations that I hold are sometimes clever, but seldom if ever wise.
 * I genuinely and profoundly like people, in all their diverse complexity, and I genuinely like helping people find what degrees of happiness and security they CAN, and THUS I dislike it when I perceive people's rights or liberties being diminished or constrained in what I believe are unjust ways — and thus I am often willing to speak out against such rather passionately and vigorously. I do perceive definite patterns of virtue and villainy at work in the world, all relating to Justice, Unity, Liberty, and Love of Awareness, Life, and Love itself — but the dividing lines are WITHIN each and EVERY person — and I assure you to think of my Absurdist perspectives as anything resembling a simplistic "Manichean" scheme with some clear and definite "enemies" beyond those of ignorance and confusion, is quite deficient and flawed in many ways which it would probably take me weeks of dialogue to come close to adequately explaining to your own or my own satisfactions — so I will spare you attempting to do so now.
 * I think whenever I do get around to presenting anything close to an adequate summary of my activities here and elsewhere in recent years, from my perspectives, and some of the most significant misunderstandings which have arisen, it will actually be a rather amusing chronicle. I have no fear of being laughed at for some of my follies — but I do pity those who persist that thinking an extreme passion for Liberty and the promotion of it is something which should be counted such. I hold it absurdly sacred — so sacred and important that I can often joke about it without a bit of shame, and let others do so in their own diverse ways — and remain devoted to it all the more. I hold that Liberty is one of the great holies which is not so susceptible to decay or diminishment in the presence of laughter as many others are. So it goes… Answer to Life.png Caput mortuum.svgSwirlyclock.pngSahasrara.svg ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 03:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC) + tweaks


 * Oppose which is not something that I usually do. A person who cannot understand that socks are generally unnecessary, inherently problematic when not kept to a minimum and especially not declared. Admins, 'crats, checkusers and stewards need to pick through them and multiple SULs are NOT a necessary evil. Until there is a clear declaration recanting use of socks, then I would not support any rights above rollbacker. Can I say that this seemed to be one of the more pompous applications for admin rights, and that doesn't encourage me to support either. Ever heard of the KISS principle?  sDrewth  06:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, but things are ALWAYS in many ways far more complex than they ever can seem, especially to those who seem to remain most comfortable in defining things in very simplistic terms, rather than recognizing that all things can have far more complications than are immediately apparent — and if I am understanding you properly, it seems that in this case not only is a commitment not to USE these alternate accounts (which I HAVE agreed NOT to do) is necessary for your approval, but also an explicit expression of AGREEMENT with you and others that they should NOT be used, or at least not without ALWAYS being declared to "the Authorities" some people wish to presume themselves and others to BE about what is right or wrong or best for other people or for ALL. I realize some might take my honesty as something to be censured, but to my views, not only an accepted agreement not to diverge in PRACTICE is demanded of me, but a recantation of my HONEST and STEADFAST views that such demands are INTRINSICALLY AUTHORITARIAN, because THUS the right to honest and principled DISSENT is not being respected, even if it is to some degree tolerated — and some plainly would wish even that NOT be the case. I find such views highly confused about many things, and as a highly tolerant absurdist, such demands quite contemptible. But absurdly I can accept the proposition "that might just be me" and I might indeed be alone and remain alone in some of my objections to many things. I can bear the consequences.


 * I have no doubt that there is a great desire to keep things as simple seeming as possible, and DO respect that desire, so I will not attempt to elaborate on MANY of my objections to a few of your assertions, but certainly DO respect your right to make them, and for my right to openly dissent for openly declared reasons, or privately dissent for privately maintained reasons. I will yet elaborate on a few points I am sure are not clear to many about my general attitudes and behavior.


 * In reference to the "KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID" principle that some might find offensively insulting to be applied to them, if it were not hidden in acronyms, but I find it both amusing and acceptable, I will once again confess that I often have an honest inclination to be obviously verbose and over-pompous among those who seem obviously over-pompous to me — because my ultimate aims are NOT to convince them or anyone else to LIKE me, or admire me, or enjoy going through all that I have to say, nor even to support me in any particular ways — but to TESTIFY of TRUTH I consider important others at least eventually perceive, in such ways I can, when I can, and HOPEFULLY get them to be more tolerant or even respectful of other people's diverse opinions (if only as welcome respite from the likes of me). Some of the truths I most vigorously testify of include objections to the way many seem to insist on the importance of multiplying and magnifying and IDOLIZING the MANY rules and regulations which are accumulating, often AGAINST the common practices or understandings of others, and many of their freedoms or previous rights.


 * I will note that most of my perspectives are certainly not such as could "properly pigeonhole" me as either a "left" or "right" authoritarian, though some might try, but as a profoundly centered "absurdist" who has been willing to examine many of the absurdly good AND bad ideas of BOTH the "right" and the "left" from a "radical center" which keeps a bit of wry perspective towards both, and I am sure will seem radically anarchistic to many, and a defiance of many of their classification schemes — but I don't necessarily take that as an insult to my personal integrity.


 * My method is to take the utmost trouble to find the right thing to say, and then to say it with the utmost levity. ~ George Bernard Shaw


 * I recognize that in sincere and earnest forms of elaborating concepts with verbose pomposity, the levity will not always be obvious to all, any more than the ultimate vacuity or outright malice and hypocrisy often is in much of the pomposity of others. I hope this isn't too long a statement for anyone, and I hope that most of us can all eventually have a good laugh over many of the whoppers I have presented in the past, when more of the absurdist perspectives which impel me to defy many forms of assumptions and dictates are more fully revealed, here and elsewhere. Even when I DO get angry at what I perceive to be injustices, and constraints on what I consider the proper freedoms and rights of others, I do NOT get angry at people, so much as the circumstances which impel many to dull and dreary forms of stupidity, and thinking these desirable for all.


 * I am an odd clown who doesn't conform to many people's expectations, and those clowns who demand that others never clown around at all with words or concepts clown around far too much with fundamental liberties for me to agree with them on such matters.


 * I am usually prepared to deliver many diverse KISS presentations of good will to ANY and ALL who wish them — and at least occasionally a little swift KICK to mental fundaments of anyone who DEMAND such. All in good humor. I certainly don't seek to attack people or their rights in any way, or fight with them needlessly or relentlessly — but people have been rather surprised and disconcerted when they have attacked me or others at times, and find I am not so weak or incapable of powerful and direct ferocity as they might have imagined me to be, once any form of fight has been impelled upon me, in defense of myself of others. To close with a KISS compliant comment, I will reference John Paul Jones, and say that for all my earnest expression, and sincere concerns, I presently consider myself hardly fighting at all here. ~ Smiley.svg ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 14:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

Comments
 Unlike some, as I seek to actively encourage people to examine a wide gamut of information and NOT only that favorable to my own perspectives, and to think for themselves rather than just trust what biased reports are presented to them — ESPECIALLY if any accusations are involved which might impede, restrict or limits the rights or freedoms of anyone, MUCH of the information Cirt links to has LONG been fully displayed on my User talk page, and MUCH else besides, and I intend to insure that it always shall be: Here are some of the links as they are presented at the bottom of a display area for concepts and notions I find notable: November 2009 Controversies · FloNight Assessments & Responses‎‎ · VOC·K · Outrages of Autumn 2010‎‎ · 2009 † 2010 · 2011 · Magic.
 * Comment: For a brief history of the socking, see User:Kalki/Restrictions. Please see also: User:FloNight/Kalki, Votes of confidence/Kalki, Restriction by community against Kalki due to socking, and English Wikipedia sock investigations case page. -- Cirt (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I created FloNight Assessments & Responses‎‎ to provide some reactions to some of the suppositions or accusations which were made against me without having to edit in FloNight's userspace. For a VERY skewed and imbalanced summary of what Cirt describes as "a brief history of the socking" you can of course follow any of the links Cirt provides. I will here note that User:Kalki/Restrictions is a page ENTIRELY created by within my userspace to list restrictions he chose to phrase in ways I consider to often be very deceitful, dictatorial and presumptive. It's history reveals that he blocked anyone but admins from editing so I could not respond upon it to the errors or deliberate distortions quite evident on the page in my own userspace. UNLIKE those who have exhibited behavior to PREVENT discussion, such as blocking me in the past because I dared to dispute his avid and zealous forms of censorship of views or even respectful mention of persons he seems hostile to, I promote HONEST dialogue and oppose most attempts to forcibly limit it — which some people seem rather DEPENDENT upon.

As is the case in MANY other incidents in his career of suppressive behavior here no matter how he might disguise and camouflage it with "polite" or "impassive" wording and imperious officiousness, there are measures and sanctions mentioned on that page which arose ENTIRELY from the will and imagination of Cirt — and NOT by ANY community consensus.

He LISTS the following assertions AS IF they were ALL official decisions of the community, when ONLY the first might be reasonably be construed to be anything but his OWN attempts to threaten, intimidate and IMPOSE sanctions upon me, by nothing but his own PERSONAL will to do so — and NOT by any community determined decisions.


 * Kalki be allowed to edit only with the account User:Kalki.
 * This is indeed an agreement I ACCEPTED under duress, in response to a UNJUST and improper block upon me — and demands by Cirt which others seemed unwilling to recognize as extortion of obedience to NOT doing something I did not and NEVER have conceded to be INNATELY improper.
 * Any violations of the above can result in a 3 month block.
 * This declaration is ENTIRELY a creation of CIRT's apparent desires or dictatorial and punitive fantasies. I doubt they are the wildest of vilest of them, but they certainly were NOT discussed by the community as appropriate measures against me — let alone approved or sanctioned by others. IF there are some who would consent to approve of such outrageous measures, I truly forgive them and pity them and hope they recover from their delusions that such measures would remotely constitute anything resembling justice.
 * In any event, I have never violated my agreement, and do not intend to, until such times as it is recognized as improperly binding upon what SHOULD be the rights of ANYONE by the general community here, even though it was extracted and the terms of it imposed in what I consider an extremely dishonorable way.
 * Further transgressions, result in blocks of increasing severity (perhaps 6 months, 1 year, indefinite).
 * This too is simply Cirt being Cirt — full of certitude in ways that I believe exhibit a very presumptuous, dictatorial and punitive attitude towards anyone who declines to abjectly obey such demands as he perhaps believes he can forever get away with making, based upon little else but the authority of his own will.
 * I expect that I will eventually have to go into more elaborate detail some of the foul distortions he has made in the past, to make what I consider a despicably malicious attitude and smugly mendacious behavior more apparent. I believe he generally trusts that his capacity to convince others into accepting him as a desirable person to hold official status here and elsewhere permits many of his assertions to go unquestioned and unexamined by many.

I consider people who expect others to abjectly obey their desires and commands to conform their behavior to such constraints as others dictate (without clear and sufficient reasons of those people on their own terms to have respect such instructions), to be manifesting the most generally loathsome sort of character any human being can manifest, no matter upon what levels of power or practice they might exert such will. Obviously those with little power or will cannot usually directly do much harm — but collectively the apathy and indifference many exhibit in examining and contending about truth results in the most boldly mendacious and tyrannical generally dominating many factions of humanity, often for quite long periods — with occasional breaks in monotony or conformity by those individuals with new forms of insight and innovation, who rebel against what they perceive clearly to be falsehoods — whether they be lies or delusions.

Whether or not this current effort to undo some of the damages he has succeeded in inflicting upon my reputation in his persistent campaign of harassment fails, and whether or not I regain admin status, I expect that some of the points I have not as yet bothered to explicitly make, because of the MANY complications involved will eventually come out in coming months, here and elsewhere, as I make concerted efforts to make clear many long neglected or obscured principles, truths, facts and diverse forms of concern for humanity of which I am aware, and to which I have long been devoted. I expect and intend to do so far more boldly and bluntly as well as swiftly and sharply at various places elsewhere than I have ever been inclined to here. I have no delusions that all I address will immediately understand or appreciate much that I say and do — nor even MOST of it, but I find that actually quite amusing and comforting, as I expect that this will permit many diverse points to develop in many diverse ways, to the benefit of many — in opposition to the common dictatorial stances of people who assume they KNOW enough already to JUDGE and DICTATE in elaborate detailed ways how others should or should not be permitted to behave or live. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 05:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC) + tweaks
 * Comment: Please see also Requests for adminship/Kalki, where had a (failed) RFA after having previously been de-sysopped. This particular RFA is less than one year after that one. -- Cirt (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The mind, conscious of rectitude, laughed to scorn the falsehood of report. ~ Ovid
 * 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 ~
 * The usual judgments are judgments of interest and they tell us less about the nature of the person judged than about the interest of the one who judges. ~ Constantin Brunner
 * Yes, Cirt, I believe those links are available on a few of my own pages as well, as I have NOTHING of which I am ashamed. I was de-sysopped because after some rather significant ACCUSATIONS there were enough people who were suspicious or hostile to me, or unsupportive, relative to those few who had confidence in me for years of service, despite many eccentricities I did NOT attempt to fully justify or explain, for many MORAL reasons. After that I apparently became someone at least a few of the most belligerent thought would be vulnerable to what I consider rather presumptive and unjustified attacks on my continued use of the accounts with the most specious of logic — that because the accusations RESULTED in my desysoping that PROVED them TRUE. This eventually led to your rampage of defacement of my accounts on many of the wikis, by simply labeling me a "sockpuppeter" of misused or abused accounts — which I have ALWAYS maintain NEVER happened, and relying on others trust of your status at various points as something that made such an accusation seem credible to at least a few who were willing to block me, thus preventing me from easily serving this and other wikiprojects in some ways that depend upon crosswiki access, and I believe I mentioned elsewhere the ludicrousness of some of your accusations that even this was "improper" behavior and plain desire to see me blocked extensively on many occasions.


 * I continue to assert: no one has EVER remotely proven any malicious intentions or clearly improper uses in ANY of those accounts that are ACTUALLY mine — and I believe your willingness to imply or perhaps even believe they had only testifies to how willing you are to believe or assert the worst of others who for some reason irritate you, or you perceive to be a vulnerable target for abuses.


 * The votes taken about my long held status as an admin and bureaucrat were definitely NOT on my guilt of doing anything actually WRONG, as some have since tried to make it SEEM, but ONLY of whether, after significant revelations of an odd penchant for operating under various names (to do MOSTLY rather mundane and beneficial edits, largely in accord with my own Absurdist perspectives and moralities which seek to minimize unjust support of ANY forms of authoritarian assumptions, and to do MANY forms of good WITHOUT SEEKING CREDIT for it — a concept that some find so alien and incredible to their power-hungry and power seeking minds, that they cannot accept even the possibility of that as an adequate explanation). Those of darker and more cynical perspectives took that as activity too much resembling that of vandals, and even if it wasn't that it shouldn't be done, because it was too much of a burden on others to investigate the activity of any new names — AS IF the burden of addressing a few new odd names now and then was an some extraordinary burden on the resources of others and this project. In my own long YEARS of serving this project as an admin and a bureaucrat I REGULARLY examined new user's edits and their activities to guard against vandalism, and would NOT have considered it an undue burden for anyone to use as many other names as me to do whatever proper and constructive edits they wished. It is the DISRUPTIVE edits and attempts to IMPOSE upon others CONSTRAINTS and rules that might suit one's self fine — but might be horrendously overbearing or disrespectful of the capacities and inclinations of others. At least ONE person whom I perceive as power-hungry and aggressive appears to take much delight in harassing others in various ways, seem very interested in OBSCURING or denying that FACT.


 * Even the fact that I have tolerated and left uncontested so many of your ridiculous and contemptible complaints and accusations in your many years of harassment is something I am not embarrassed at at all. That I have born them with what patience I have, with so little exposure of much that will ultimately exonerate me of the most contemptible accusations which you or any other has ever been able to frame, out of considerations of far more important things I have attempted to attend to, is something I am actually quite pleased with, though the bearing itself might at times be briefly irritating, I give little thought to such relatively petty problems most of the time, and focus on such solutions I can provide to far more important ones. Blessings, and to ALL : Have a Happy Saint Patrick's Day! ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 22:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC) + tweaks
 * NOTE: makes factually inaccurate statements directly above, that contradict his own apology to FloNight. -- Cirt (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I honestly believe I make NO factually inaccurate remarks, nor any that would be interpreted as intended as such by any competent person — My apology to FloNight STANDS: I HONESTLY do wish you well and I DO apologize and seek to apologize in many ways for many things that have been burdensome to you and others — I repeat I have no wish to be an unnecessary burden or tormentor of anyone, and hope that others will eventually see that it is not conducive to anyone's welfare to be an unnecessary burden or tormentor of others. May the fates bless you and lead you to bless others well.
 * I meant that and still do, and seek to be meticulously honest with EVERY statement I have made or can make, and IF anyone wishes to contend about my honesty or virtue, so be it — but I don't have time to do so now, as I am already late on a few things, and must be leaving. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 23:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC) + tweak