Wikiquote talk:Requests for adminship/Kalki (4th request)

Please don't remove comments
Let's please not remove comments on suspicion of socking unless proven by Checkuser investigation and formal socking investigation.

We can strike votes, but let's keep the comments in discussion until proven otherwise.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Perfect example: Undid myself for one such removal, and removed it, again, as this is conclusive as a globally blocked IP. Hope that makes things a bit clearer. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Asking socks to self-disclose

 * Per Billinghurst, asking those that commented above to self-identify if they are behind the socking: has ✅ via Checkuser that  and  are sockpuppets, and additionally ✅ that they are sockpuppets technically connected to someone that has voted at this Request for Adminship. Though the local Wikiquote community is unanimous in asking  to identify the other connected sock accounts, Billinghurst has asked us to ask the sock accounts to self-disclose. So, therefore, if you have commented in a vote, at the Request for Adminship, and you are the user behind sock accounts  and, would you please comment identifying yourself, below? -- Cirt (talk) 06:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per Billinghurst, they are socks of someone else who had already voted above before 12:09, 25 January 2015. So that leaves those individuals who had already voted at link. -- Cirt (talk) 07:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Cirt, where did Billinghurst say that this was someone that has supported at this Request for Adminship? I only see that it is "another person who has voted", which could be in support or opposition. Please confirm, thanks. BD2412 T 14:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , you are correct, I believe from the wording by, the third-party sock(s) could be someone that voted either way, before 12:09, 25 January 2015. Makes sense? -- Cirt (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is my reading of it - somebody who had voted (without further specification) by the time of Billinghurst's initial confirmation of sockpuppetry. I would presume that the as-yet unnamed party is the sockmaster (particularly given the relative paucity of edit history for the socks). BD2412 T 16:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly yes,, that seems to be likely, but there could be other sleeper socks. -- Cirt (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It would seem that either (A) the puppetmaster is someone who opposes Kalki's bid and who used socks to vote for Kalki in order to sow doubt about the legitimacy of Kalki's reascension to adminship, or (B) the puppetmaster is someone who voted for Kalki and who used socks to vote for Kalki in order to boost the vote totals in favour of Kalki's reascension to adminship. Either way, it pleases me that people aren't jumping to conclusions one way or the other.  Hopefully, whomever the culprit is, she or he will do the right thing and come forward.  Regardless of whether the puppetmaster ultimately hoped to help or to hurt Kalki's bid, the actions of said puppetmaster are unfair to both Kalki specifically and the Wikiquote community generally.  allixpeeke (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We shall find out soon. -- Cirt (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

 I strongly believe this entire commentary by  in this section should be removed as clear attempt at further POISONING the processes than he already has. My commentary can also be removed, and perhaps restored in an appendix in the archival records of the processes which have occurred.

The contempt I believe Cirt often exhibits for people and human decency generally is exemplified clearly in many of his activities, here and elsewhere, amidst his burst of frantic opposition to my nomination, where he directly ignores or denies some clear falsehoods in many of his statements, and goes about impugning ANYONE who has voted for me prior to those to anon IP votes of being an unethical sock-puppet master, DIRECTLY on their user pages, and implicitly here. This is clearly meant to be BOTH intimidating and prejudicial.

His provided links above are so crafted to make it SEEM to IMPLY that whoever was behind the rather OBVIOUSLY suspicious votes, I don’t believe most people ever took as very credible, MUST be someone who voted FOR me by name prior to that, and these HIDE the fact that in addition to those two clearly improper votes for me there were also two improper votes AGAINST me, which are not revealed in his links and that the history of the recent troll-vandal's activities show him to be quite adept at taking BOTH sides of an issue in order to cause confusion, something that is I believe familiar to all of us who are familiar with many forms of duplicity. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 10:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC) + tweaks


 * Utter rubbish, and it's petulant outbursts like this that reinforce my opinion that you are unfit to hold any administrator's powers whatsoever. There have been suspicious votes cast and it is entirely right and proper that this is looked into.
 * Cirt posted a neutral message on my talk page outlining the circumstances and asking for me to self-reveal if I was socking. (I have not, and left an appropriate comment there). Cirt has, as far as I am aware, left comments on all parties who commented before the cut off time, whether they supported or opposed, so it's disingenuous to accuse him of trying to act in an intimidating or prejudicial way. Your ill-thought out and ill-tempered outbursts are enough in my mind to show me that giving you any powers at all would be a very large backward step for this project.
 * One last point, could you please stop bolding large chunks of your comments - combined with the walls of text you post, it makes for very difficult reading. – SchroCat (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I must admit you have quite a bit of nerve speaking about "petulant outbursts" in my seeking to point out what I believe to be a clear effort to mislead and intimidate others as soon as I request its removal. That might indeed help INSURE it stays. If he indeed posted a notice to your page as well as the several others who voted for me, that might be seen as slightly less prejudicial, but I hardly believe this posting here, or your comments actually designate a great deal of "neutrality." If my statements as a long term contributor actually intensely concerned with this project rather than harshly and vigorously criticizing anyone who so much as has a valid suspicion of them, for any reason, even briefly, can be taken by you as "ill-thought out and ill-tempered outbursts" I believe it is entirely in accord with your own prominently displayed temperment and judgement, which I acknowledge I obviously disagree with. Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 11:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC) + tweaks
 * In case you hadn't followed them the links he provides clearly show ONLY the votes of people who had voted FOR me — not against me, so to imply that my observations are "utter rubbish" is something I find a bit of rubbish. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 11:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The fact that you cannot see why, how and where you are at fault speaks volumes. Througout this RfA you have tried to shovel any criticism onto other people, even when that criticism is well thought out, comes from neutral sources and is germane to the process. I look at your opening statement here where you claim not to have "betrayed or ignored the founding PRINCIPLES of the wiki projects ... of Justice, Unity, Liberty and GOOD FAITH towards ALL", and I see little evidence of any good faith in your comments here, quite the reverse, in fact, as your instant bludeoning of any criticism shows. As I've asked before, can you please make it easier for people to read by not bolding in every post, and not using shouty caps.
 * As to your point about the links, I had looked at the diff, which provided the timestamp of Billinghurst's action. Becuase the strike was of two supporting votes, that is the selection of text shown in the diff, but the full page underneath showed all those who had taken part: this is entirely standard across the Wiki platform. You raising a hue and cry over the provison of the timestamp shows a rather dubious perspective and a lack of understanding on process.
 * Each time you post only exemplifies the behaviour I expect not to see in an admin. - SchroCat (talk) 11:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thus far, from my observations of your activities here, each time anyone disagrees with you seems to exemplify behavior you do not expect to see in a human being, and will not tolerate or even forgive. Some of us actually are inclined to respect and honor much about many of those we strongly disagree with, forgive all to the extent we can, pardon those who acknowledge their errors from further resentments, and never demand absolute deference and servility from anyone. I am aware some people seem generally oblivious to such notions. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ … Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 11:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "you seems to exemplify behavior you do not expect to see in a human being": thank you very much for dropping into rank insults. I advise that if this is your usual level of discourse, you withdraw this RfA, as you are palpably unfit for the position. - SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I spoke frankly of what I believe to be your quite evident arrogance. From my observations of your activities here "dropping into rank insults" and attempting to intimidate others who act and express their opinions in good faith seem to be your constant forte, and I certainly do not seek to rival you in that. If you are in any way threatened with fear that I mean to compete with you entirely in such terms, I do apologize for any impressions that might be the case. I have no intentions of doing so, though I probably will respond to some of your criticisms directly, of me or of others, something you don’t seem to have much inclination to appreciate as anyone's right. Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 12:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * More insults? You really are palpably unfit for the administrator's role. I will withdraw from this conversation now before you become even more personal. And, as I've requested a couple of times before, please could you stop using bold test in your comments: it makes them hard to read - SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @SchroCat: Kalki is actually right. All you've done here, ever since you joined Wikiquote, is insult people. Then, when this is pointed out to you, you simply accuse others of being insulting. Stop being so self-righteous. I'm starting to think you should be blocked for trolling. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So WikiQuote is the part of the project where Admins or potential have the right to insult others without any action against them, then get their chums to come along and stick up for them? Be serious just for one minute. I am not trying to claim any powers here: Kalki the insulter is. Try getting some perspective before you weigh in. - SchroCat (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I will add, DanielTom, that from the very start Kalki has shown no good faith and insulted me with baseless, unfounded and uncivil accusations, so do not try and smehow say that this is my fault. This is the activity of a potential admin that is under the microscope, and they have fallen a long way short of te standards I woud expect to see. - SchroCat (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * He hasn't insulted you at all. You appeared to be that vandal even to me. And I explained that to you, that it was a misunderstanding. Why do you feel the need to blow everything out of proportion? You have already "strongly opposed" his adminship, what more do you want. Learn to forgive, and move on. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, he has, several times now, and it's a little disingenuous to try and claim otherwise ("you seems to exemplify behavior you do not expect to see in a human being" and "your quite evident arrogance" in this sub-thread alone). You may think my oppose is "ridiculous": I do not, and my comments this morning, on the question of socks was to correct the misleading statements Kalki wrote on the point above: there is no need for me to "forgive, and move on". - SchroCat (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe DanielTom should have said that I "hadn't insulted you at all" in my first remarks to you; in that I believe he would have been correct, for I meant no insult towards anyone I did not know to be a vandal or a troll, as the qualifiers in my statements I believed made clear. After you continued with your copious insults and abuses, of me and of others, I did begin to respond to clear insults with some honest insults of what I perceived to be your generally insulting demeanor. I hope and trust that decent and fair human beings can and will forgive me for that, but I honestly do not expect many of those still extremely habituated to be extremely insulting to others for little reason to be able to do so. Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 13:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC) +tweak
 * "honest insults"? If you think your actions in insulting others are somehow justified, then you really aren't fit to be an admin, I'm afraid. I'm stepping away now, as I think there is little point in continuing this RfA at all, let alone my input to it. - SchroCat (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I thank you for your remarkable consideration. May we all come to greater understandings, happiness and agreements in the future. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ … Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 13:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Process
I am asking Cirt to abstain from further participation here, it is inflammatory. This is Kalki's RfA and he must have a right of response here, but his responses, as well, incite further insistence. Both, please stop. This discussion is about socking on the RfA, and Kalki is not accused of it -- at least not any more. We do not know if the sock was a supporter or opposed (or merely commented) and we cannot be certain of nuances of meaning, they can be misleading. So below is what has happened. --Abd (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If not for my actions, we wouldn't even know there was now ✅ socking at this RFA. I can agree to stop commenting in response to Kalki, as I've offered to do. -- Cirt (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you can stop using the "✅" template now. BD2412 T 18:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Confirmed. :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Information
(this section, while initially posted by Abd, may be edited by anyone to add events or correct errors. Please sign at the bottom if editing.)
 * Checkuser discussion.
 * Billinghurst identified two persons voting in the RfA as socks of someone who had already voted. He struck their votes. He did not disclose the identity of the account operating the socks. The socks:


 * Cirt blocked both users
 * Cirt started this discussion on the RfA page. I moved it here, and he consented.
 * Cirt notified editors with a request to disclose socking.
 * The following editors had votes -- or comments -- in the RfA when Billinghurst intervened (not including the two socks).
 * notified, denied.
 * notified.
 * notified, reverted notice.
 * notified, denied.
 * notified, denied.
 * notified, denied.
 * notified, denied.
 * [not notified]
 * [not notified]
 * notified, response but no denial.
 * (comment) notified, denied.
 * (comment) [notified] denied (confirmed by Billinghurst to be unrelated to the socking at the RFA).


 * Updated. --Abd (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * remove strike, left note by Cirt about Billinghurst --Abd (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * added denial by Kalki and link to checkuser discussion. --Abd (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments
I don't think this is a good idea. You are basically trying to "out" the user behind the two socks ("last man standing"- style). I would prefer to let that user, if they so wish, come forth on their own. There is no need for us to try to find out who this user is, because the checkusers already know it, and they will reveal it soon enough. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no such intention, DanielTom. I act to serve the community. Period. The user has an opportunity to come forth "on their own." They will or won't. It's an opportunity. There is zero coercion here. Your response was unhelpful and I consider it disruptive, but so what? There is a lot worse going on. There are a number of users who have not responded. It may stay that way, and the community may have wisdom greater than any one of us. Let it be.


 * Thank you for compiling the above information,, it is most helpful. -- Cirt (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: Billinghurst also ✅ that Kalki was not related to the socking at the RFA. -- Cirt (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, that was my impression, but it is much easier (one edit) to be complete here than to collect information from various sources. Kalki may respond or not, it is completely up to him. I don't jump to conclusions. --Abd (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, but it was ✅ by Checkuser, so we know it wasn't Kalki. And it does make sense to state that here. Hopefully Kalki will be able to breathe a little bit easier after knowing that information. :) At least, I do certainly hope so. -- Cirt (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting that even if a user has responded and denied affiliation with the socks, the user may be lying, so this list does not, in fact, really 'out' anyone. I read the entire discussion here between Billinghurst, et. al., and unfortunately Billinghurst chooses not to give a reason for why she/he is delaying in providing us with the username of the puppetmaster.  I can only guess that Billinghurst hopes the puppermaster will come forward on her/his own, asking for forgiveness for her/his misdeed, and that the community will take this attempt for atonement into consideration when deciding whether or not (and to what extent) to punish the perpetrator.  Also, considering that mistrust breeds hostility, and that the recent vandalisms have engendered a great deal of mistrust, perhaps Billinghurst thinks that if the puppetmaster comes forward on her/his own, this action might help to boost the level of trust we have with one another, thereby strengthening the community.  (Conversely, if the puppetmaster chooses to deny being the puppetmaster, then perhaps we will come together in focusing our distrust on that particular user instead of diffusing our mistrust to everyone.)  In any event, I see nothing objectively wrong in compiling the information we have.  If someone is lying, we'll know soon enough, and if no one is lying, we'll know that soon enough, as well. In the meantime, let's all keep an even head.  While I still vote to give Kalki adminship, I do believe that Kalki owes Cirt a bit of an apology, since Cirt wasn't attempting to 'poison' the process, but was instead merely trying to clean poison out of the process by getting to the bottom of figuring out who created User:Gene96 and User:Jimmy11234.  (If anything, Kalki should appreciate the fact that Cirt is trying to keep this process clean; insofar as this process remains clean, then Kalki's reascension to adminship will not be tarnished with doubts.)  Suffice it to say, Cirt was tactful in his/her attempt to get the puppetmaster to come clean, and I did not feel impugned or intimidated by his request.  This can be contrasted with the largely unproductive discussion between Kalki and SchroCat above, one that could have been largely avoided had either decided to use a bit more tact. To be clear, I hope I have not offended anyone by stating specific usernames in this comment.  My point is not to 'call out' these users, but rather to provide a simple example of what we could avoid here.  There's always an opportunity to rise above the situation, and neither SchroCat's explicit excuse that he/she's not running for admin, nor Kalki's implicit excuse that SchroCat started it, serve as a justifiable reason not to rise above the situation.  Again, I'm not saying these names in order to wag my finger and say "bad Kalki" or "bad SchroCat" (I sincerely believe both will try to use more tact in the future); rather, I hope this serves as an example to all of us about how unproductive it is to allow ourselves to get mired in the proverbial muck.  Thus, I reiterate: in the meantime, let's all keep an even head.  (If we don't, the vandals win.) Best regards to all, including to those whose usernames I've mentioned herein, allixpeeke (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe most of us can get along much better in the future, and genuinely hope we all can. I think it would be most tactful for me to be relatively quiet about a number of things at this point, as I have been doing today, busy with many other things, but this alert was originally posted on the nomination page itself, with stronger implications than its present wording, for these have been tweaked to a more moderate and less accusative tone. I believe some people are aware there was also extensive effort to draw others into the disputes here from other wikis, but again, I believe I should probably not enter the fray too extensively right now — there is a winter storm going on, and it is very conceivable I could lose my internet at any time, and not be able to respond to many things. That and my actual busy-ness with other matters have kept me from responding more to a few things on the wiki today. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 17:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with above comments, both by Allixpeeke and by Kalki. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I confirm that I did use the accounts and  that was used to vote I made a mistake doing it and I acknowledge that it was wrong.I was frustrated at the number of vandals vandalizing and creating random pages especially  running amok and getting away and that there should be more admins to deal with this. --Miszatomic (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You posted exactly what DanielTom told you to post on your talk page. I see no detail as to why you did it and also I see no remorse either....Can you please tell us in detail why you did it?--Stemoc (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think English is Miszatomic's first language, and I suspect that's why he didn't come forth earlier. Not an excuse, just trying to be fair. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * He was also confirmed as using the sock account DanielTom6 via an enwiki CU and Jody Fosteur, which he actually blocked himself..probably a good time for him to reveal all his sock accounts..--Stemoc (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That is surprising. The context is, we have had a troll-vandal here who for years has been harassing and impersonating people, sometimes mocking their usernames (in my case, also DanielTom2, DanielTom7, DanielTomsMom). It is shocking that Miszatomic somehow thought it was a good idea to imitate this vandal (even if only to then block himself). ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Miszatomic.
 * This discussion should be closed. This is the Talk page for an RfA, and this traffic should not be filling up watchlists for the RfA. Miszatomic is likely in shock, cut him some slack. He's blocked, and that should be undone so that he may participate. Requests for adminship/Miszatomic (removal) has been started and consideration of his behavior and what to do for the future should be handled there. This discussion was started toward revealing who had triple-voted, and now that we know, this is over. Please don't beat the dead horse, especially here. --Abd (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't think the account should be unblocked, considering threat against admin UDSCott: "U SON OF A BITCH U BETTER UNBLOCK ME OR ELSE U AND UR LOVED 1S WILL FACE A PAINFUL DEATH!" -- Cirt (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry I mentioned it. I'm requesting a close, that there be no further comment here on this matter. --Abd (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for striking your comment that should be unblocked. Can you please make a similar modification to your request at Administrators' noticeboard? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Please close this discussion, that was my purpose of striking that comment, to withdraw raising that issue here, where it is irrelevant. --Abd (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)