The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 21:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 13:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC).

Keepscases (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute[edit]

Keepscases (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears not to be here to build an encyclopedia, in that the user appears to be excessively uncivil and continues to disrupt, soapbox, and bully candidate atheists at RfA, effectuating a chilling effect on atheistic potential candidates.

An RfC was suggested by X! here and Gwen Gale here. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 13:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Desired outcome[edit]

The user should cease trying to disrupt, soapbox, and bully candidate atheists at RfA (both WP:RFA and WT:RFA).

Description[edit]

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

Here is a list of diffs that convince us that this user should not be editing RfA:

This user makes up nonsense reasons for supporting and opposing candidates, and asks nonsense questions that don't help the RfA in any way.

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute[edit]

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute.)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
During that topic ban discussion, I was in deep discussion with Keepscases explaining why this user's edits were disruptive. The user would not listen. This user has continued this behavior since the topic ban discussion. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 22:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

Irbisgreif (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BigDunc 22:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
snigbrook (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that Keepscases has shown animosity towards atheists, I think that's a misunderstanding. I agree with the rest of the summary however. Atama ^chat 01:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aaroncrick (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 21:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 15:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional view by Jeff G.[edit]

"[W]ithin an RfA, soapboxy questions, alikened across many RfAs, should be kept out of the discussion or otherwise banned"[2]

Users who endorse this summary:

— Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 13:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

Jeff G. is being entirely disingenuous here. I have nothing against atheists, and I have made this clear countless times. My issue is with intentionally disrespectful, offensive, and inflammatory userboxes. I do not feel any user who believes it is a good idea to display such userboxes is the sort of person who should serve as an administrator.

I have the right to vote based on whatever criteria I choose. I am often forced to defend myself against other users who attack me for my votes...but it is those users who are responsible for the drama, and it is they who tend to be the uncivil ones.

I don't know why Jeff G. links to questions I've asked, given that they have absolutely nothing to do with what he's disputing, but I have the right to ask whatever questions I wish at RfAs, and in plenty of instances they've been appreciated by the candidates and/or been quite helpful in their evaluation.

Finally, I will mention that Jeff G.'s claim of me being responsible for a "chilling effect" couldn't possibly be more wrong. I don't want to censor anyone--I think users should be able to create and display whatever userboxes they wish--and it has consistently amazed me that supposed free speech advocates seem to believe that it's somehow inappropriate to judge someone based on words and attitudes he or she conveys.

Users who endorse this summary:

Keepscases (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff seems to be playing a game of forum shopping in terms of creating unnecessary drama. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 00:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gritted teeth endorse. Keepscases is acting like an asshole, but we shouldn't be banning people for acting like assholes unless it's actually affecting other people. It was wrong when we did it to Kurt and it's wrong here. – iride scent 00:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Cube lurker (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
grinding teeth, clenched fists, "nails on a chalkboard" regretful agree. Iridescent is spot on here - in other words Keepcases knock off the argumentative badgering — Ched : ? 13:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly. While many of Keepscases !votes and comments at RfA may be very unpopular with the community, he isn't causing enough disruption to deserve a topic ban—yet. He still deserves the ability to speak his mind at RfA. If we topic banned Keepscases, we'd have to topic ban several other RfA regulars who decide to voice their unpopular opinions. If his comments become any more out-there and disruptive, though, I think it may be time for him to take a break from RfAs. Hopefully, this RfC will make him notice before that happens that there is an encyclopedia that needs to be built, and right now it looks like building an encyclopedia isn't one of his top priorities. Tim meh (review me) 16:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no past interactions with any of the parties here. While I have been commenting on RfA more lately, I had not particularly noticed any comments by the user Keepscases. After reviewing the provided diffs, I come to the conclusion that the frustrated users are correct in their allegation the Keepscases occasionally posts seemingly irrelevant information to the RfA page. However, this is not necessarily disruptive to the encyclopedia building project. If ignored, they could do no worse than provide a note of humor to the process. And they do not seem to have adversely affected any processes. Finally, none of his posts appear to be directly offensive. In short, I do not understand why this is a big enough issue to merit this serious debate. --Matheuler 19:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Icewedge (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this summary. $USERA displays a userbox that $USERB finds offensive. $USERB doesn't censor the userbox, he states that people who think it's acceptable to display that userbox probably aren't suitable for admin. As for odd questions at RfA - that's daft. RfA is full of questions that appear to be stupid, pointless, or unhelpful, until the candidate answers them. Either their responses poke neutrals into support / oppose, or you get to know a lot more about a gnome like candidate. I would ask that Keepcases creates a small note su-page, and provides a small text link to it to avoid being part of the disruption that happens when people badger him for his notvotes. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Ched and Irri... although I am personally more concerned with the assinine questions, but I haven't noticed them lately (perhaps that's because I'm not paying as much attention to RfA?)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keepcases's concern for candidate's userboxes are justified. The questions are bothersome, but if they help his "process," possibly assist others in their choice, then it's quite all right. I am a firm believer in freedom, and from what I've come to understand, !voters may choose their own criteria for !voting (within reason). They are not disrupting Requests for Adminship in any significant way. –blurpeace ^(talk) 19:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Giants27 (c|s) 19:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ThaddeusB (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Enough is enough. Move on to other things, please. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There have been enough users who've been opposed in the past for their userboxes. Revragnarok comes immediately to mind, but there are probably others. AKAF (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
per Iridescent. 'nuff said. Cheers, I'^mperator 16:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with Keepscases' views on the userboxes, but I can certainly see how he's offended by them and therefore questions the candidate's qualifications based on the display of the userbox. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(X! · talk) · @683 · 15:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't encountered any of these editors before, so I may not have a complete picture -- but based on the above diffs, it looks to me like some of the editor's questions and votes are useful and fair, some are perhaps annoying and unnecessary, and others are just...light-hearted. (A haiku question in an RFA may seem a bit flip -- but it was April 1, after all.) I fail to see the harm, or the significant disruption. --TheOther Bob 22:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
+1. NVO (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shii (tock) 19:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— neuro^(talk) 18:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Outside view by Triplestop[edit]

Keepscases has a long history of tendentious edits such as religion based remarks and nonsense questions. I note that he has been blocked for this previously. When AGF is applied to this user's edits and people try to explain to him the problem with his edits, he becomes very hostile and argumentative, with a strong sense of entitlement and sometimes outright attacks. Sure, he has a right to express his opinions, however this has caused an inordinate amount of disruption and he continues nevertheless and this has been going on for years. Keepscases is toeing a very fine line here, between merely expressing his opinion and outright trolling. However given that this has been going on for years it is becoming more difficult to assume good faith that it's not the latter. With edits such as this and this, I believe Keepscases is on a slow route to a permaban.

Users who endorse this summary:

Triplestop x3 23:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Majorly talk 01:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Irbisgreif (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BigDunc 22:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
snigbrook (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sick of it. Surely there are more important things to Oppose about? Aaroncrick (talk) 06:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per above. Dear Keepscases, Please find a more constructive way to use your time. Sincerely, Airplaneman ^talk 17:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this behaviour continues, it's only a matter of time. Robofish (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Javert[edit]

Topic ban Keepscases from RfA as well as WT:RfA. Keepscases participation there is a constant cause for disruption and does not help the discussion.

Users who endorse this summary:

→javért ^stargaze 23:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 23:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC) (I added WT:RFA to section #Desired outcome above)[reply]
Support. Though the ANI thread has already given no consensus for this Triplestop x3 00:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine. Majorly talk 01:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Irbisgreif (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
although like Triplestop, I note that this currently does not have community consensus. Tan | 39 17:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find his comments very offensive.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 19:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Atama ^chat 01:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also find his comments very offensive. --Airplaneman ^talk 17:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 05:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly, this seems appropriate. Robofish (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Cube lurker[edit]

Having a minority viewpoint should not result in a topic ban from RFA. From what I see, the disruption is caused not by the initial oppose !vote, but with certain users response to his !vote. People just need to relax, let the !vote stand without arguing about it, and if the candidate is highly qualified one unpopular oppose !vote won't make a difference.

Users who endorse this summary:

--Cube lurker (talk) 13:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Ched : ? 13:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Skomorokh 17:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So Why 19:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 10:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So true. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plastikspork (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dekimasuよ! 01:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(X! · talk) · @683 · 15:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right so. RFA is about the candidate and not his/her critics. NVO (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— neuro^(talk) 18:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Hiberniantears[edit]

Look, Keepcases is annoying. We all agree on this. Editors like Keepcases lack any value to this project. In fact, editors like Keepcases are really kind of sad. But aside from that, who takes this character seriously? Anyone? I don't, and I doubt many others do. But topic banning is just a waste of time, and probably exactly what this guy is after. Heck, I bet this RfC made his day too. Ignore the trolls. Focus on the content.

Users who endorse this summary:

Hiberniantears (talk) 03:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by SoWhy[edit]

I will largely say what I said on ANI: We cannot go around telling people for what reasons they are allowed to !vote and for what not. There are many reasons why someone decides to oppose or support a candidate and none are shared by everyone. Age? Featured content? Deletion work? Everyone has their own set of criteria and that's fine. RFA is a discussion and everyone should be allowed to put forward their reasons why they feel a candidate is qualified or unqualified for the mop. There cannot be, per definition of the nature of RFA, no "illegal" !votes that are not allowed. There can only be such that have no consensus with the rest of the community (such as Keepscases') but they are not a reason to ban someone from RFA.

Disrupting users are what you have to deal with on a project such as this one and Keepscases knows full well what reaction he causes. But that is not the problem. We cannot blame Keepscases for this reaction. While he can anticipate it or might even like to see what impact his irrelevant !votes have, it's those who are baited by those !votes to reply, mostly to defend the candidate (while candidates usually have simply ignored these !votes or left comments in the style described at Wikipedia:Thank you for your vote), who are causing the real disruption (just see the amount of discussion created by such !votes at my own RFA here and here). A !vote, however irrelevant, will not do any damage at all. No serious admin candidate will think less of himself because of it and no experienced user will think it's a valid reason anyway.

We have now wasted countless hours, on RFAs, WT:RFA, WP:ANI and now here to discuss something that is not worth discussing. In all those hours, we could have cleaned up thousands of articles, written new DYKs, expanded articles, cleaned up BLPs, etc. We could have just decided to ignore Keepscases' !votes and done something worthwhile (like Keepscases could have done as well instead of defending his !votes time and time again) but instead we have chosen to succumb to the drama we seem to love so much. And now, that we cannot stop these !votes, some people are using all possible venues to chastise Keepscases for them without realizing that these tries, even if successful, will not bring back all the time we wasted on them. We have made the mistake with Kmweber and with DougsTech before. Yet we seem to have not learnt a single thing from them...

Users who endorse this summary:

So Why 19:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a pretty much impartial editor on the subject, I agree with this 100% VI^talk 21:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support this. See the first diff provided by Triplestop above - some people think this is disruptive, but it's not that different from the very many notvotes of people saying "candidate is power hungry/ level-upping" NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Cube lurker (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keeps and I have had our run-ins, but I agree 100% with SoWhy. The problem is ultimately the response to this type of !vote, not the !vote itself. In SOME cases, I actually agree with Keeps, that the user boxes are inappropriate!---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Skomorokh 19:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
snigbrook (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't have put in better myself --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pastor Theo (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plastikspork (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dekimasuよ! 01:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Athe Weatherman 13:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am uninvolved, but the disruption and waste of time caused by this is noticable to me. Let the community come to concensus without attacking each others views. Despite the fact we have these for AFD and such, I believe that having a list of "invalid !votes" only leads us more towards a voting culture, rather than towards one based on discussion. --Taelus (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evil saltine (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sensible approach ala WP:RBI, -- Banjeboi 11:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Ched : ? 11:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(X! · talk) · @683 · 15:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
+1. NVO (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ks0stm ^(T•C) 13:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— neuro^(talk) 18:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Seeker 4 Talk 16:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Frank[edit]

I presume as a default position that this RfC is raised in good faith, but I disagree with it for several reasons:

The stated reason for the RfC is the objection to Keepscases' treatment of RfA candidates who are (or may be) atheists. However, I count only four of the diffs having even the slightest thing to do with religion ([3], [4], [5], and [6]), out of a total of 27 diffs. I realize the subsequent sentence does address it a bit, but I don't find that reasoning very compelling. Who is to determine that "This user makes up nonsense reasons for supporting and opposing candidates, and asks nonsense questions that don't help the RfA in any way."? I have previously supported Keepscases' right to ask questions that are not disruptive or against policy, and none of the diffs falls outside those limits, which is how Wikipedia runs (by community consensus).
One of those four diffs was actually a support of a user who Keepscases identified as an atheist.
The assertion that questions are "nonsense" or "don't help the RfA in any way" cries out for a ((Fact)) tag. Who is to judge whether a question helps someone form a more complete opinion about a candidate? Why should the community censor what questions someone may ask, as long as they do not fall outside otherwise established policies? What makes off-beat questions somehow worse than "what is the difference between a ban and a block?" or "please answer this following 17-part question in your own words"? I find some of those questions to be mind-numbingly boring and pointless, and the answers to unique questions are sometimes helpful (there have been comments to this effect in past efforts to censor Keepscases).
The suggestion that a topic ban would be in any way appropriate is contrary to the spirit of both Wikipedia as a WP:COMMUNITY and RfA as a discussion. Dispense with the discussion and RfA no longer needs anything but a bot to count votes. Bureaucrats would no longer be required anywhere near RfA. If the intent is to change the way RfA operates, that's fine, but that discussion needs to happen elsewhere. (And good luck with that.)
Even if we accept at face value the assertion that Keepscases' objection is solely based on a user's professed (or imagined) atheism - and I reject that point of view - it is not for us to determine what is valid in another editor's decision-making process.

There are diffs that show I have specifically defended Keepscases in the past on this matter; if anyone cares, I can dig them up. Nevertheless, my view is primarily in support of the community process rather than in support of any individual.

Users who endorse this summary:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank (talk • contribs) 16:53, 12 August 2009
Icewedge (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Skomorokh 19:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very well put, Frank. Good observations. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Cube lurker (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Ched : ? 11:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
+1. NVO (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Balloonman[edit]

I've supported Keeps right to oppose based upon user boxes above and I stand by that support. That being said, I think Keeps should keep in mind that many people don't think about offending others when they see a user box that causes them to smile or chuckle. While I disagree with some of the user boxes, some of them are clever (e.g. the one that reads to the effect of "I don't believe in God, who are you to disagree with his wisdom"... agree or disagree, it's clever.) As such, I think some of the people who have those user boxes that offend Keeps did not add them to be offensive or derogatory, but rather simply because they didn't see the problem/issue. As such, the question for me, is what does the person do when confronted with such a concern? Do they get defensive or do they remove the user box out of concern for others. IMO, if they remove the user box when a concern is raised, we should assume good faith, and judge the candidate on their current setting. If they have a user box, and are confronted with a concern and do nothing, then that is the time to oppose. If a person is willing to listen to criticism and act on it, judge them on how they respond.

Users who endorse this summary:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Balloonman (talk • contribs) 22:48, 12 August 2009
Tim meh (review me) 23:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Ched : ? 11:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Airplaneman ^talk 02:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Robofish (talk) 04:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Atama[edit]

In a previous Administrators' Noticeboard discussion regarding Keepscases I supported a topic ban but not a full ban from the encyclopedia. Whether Keepscases is being intentionally disruptive or not, their contributions at RfAs usually act to distract from the discussion and cause unnecessary drama. WP:DFTT was brought up as a defense, saying that those who respond to Keepscases' comments and questions are the ones who are truly being disruptive, and while it's true that ignoring them would effectively end the problems, how is this to be done? From a practical perspective, is someone supposed to follow Keepscases and post a disclaimer? I've suggested that Keepscases focus on having offensive userboxes removed from Wikipedia, and in fact I agree with Keepscases as to whether or not such userboxes are disruptive. But protesting them at an RfA is disrupting to make a point, especially when so many people have expressed concerns about Keepscases' RfA contributions and have been ignored.

For practical purposes I recommend a topic ban from RfAs. I think it is better for the community and prevents further drama while also allowing Keepscases to edit in other areas of Wikipedia, including advocacy against the userboxes that are considered offensive.

Users who endorse this summary:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Atama (talk • contribs) 01:32, 13 August 2009
Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Airplaneman ^talk 01:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Robofish (talk) 04:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by NotAnIP83:149:66:11[edit]

Context is important. Look at some of the diffs presented for this RfC. The first diff refers directly to something the candidate had said, and is a valid question. The third diff refers to something the candidate said at the RfA, and that comment is trivial compared to many at the same RfA. The fourth is a reasonable oppose based on a probably tasteless UBX, etc etc. Let's look at a few that aren't straight-forwardley acceptable. Try the Haiku diff for Ottava Rima's RfA. The candidate says "Ask whatever questions you want. If you want followups, I would suggest you simply linking to the talk page so a conversation can happen there. If you want to oppose me, feel free. I wont hold anything against anyone nor challenge it. If other people want to badger opposers (or even badger supporters!) that's fine." I politely ask the creators of this RfC to be a bit more careful with their selection of diffs. Find the diffs where keepscases is rude or is not connected to something said by the candidate and I'll spend my time trawling through them. I'd also ask keepcases to tone down language at RfA; comments such as "pompous" aren't helpful.

Users who endorse this summary:

NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by WereSpielChequers[edit]

There are two aspects of Keepscases behaviour that have been brought up in this RFC, and a third that I will raise.

The asking of off the wall questions that admin candidates can't predict in advance. Adminship is a role which requires rapid and sane responses to off the wall situations, as such Keepscases questioning is IMHO more useful than some of the boilerplate stuff where an RFA candidate whose done their homework and read a few recent RFAs has a pretty good chance of getting an acceptable answer.
Keepscases doesn't like some atheist userboxes, but is campaigning against them at RFA instead of argiuing for their deletion at MFD. If a userbox offends you, put your case at MFD and you may get the userbox deleted.
Keepscases' RFA !voting record shows a pattern of him being much more likely to !vote against atheist candidates than against other candidates. Agreed he doesn't oppose every atheist but there is a pattern emerging that is troubling and should not continue.

Users who endorse this summary:

Ϣere SpielChequers 01:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Airplaneman ^talk 01:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Robofish (talk) 04:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can support this.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— neuro^(talk) 18:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by SarekOfVulcan[edit]

I'm rather hurt that I didn't have to explain an interpretive dance in a haiku written in upside-down Unicode in the course of my RFA. If the diffs in this RFC had been restricted to the "anti-atheist" comments, there might have been grounds for complaint, but a large number of those diffs are amusing at worst.

Users who endorse this summary:

SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.