User talk:Keepscases~enwiki/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Your recent comments

I have opened a discussion on this comment. You are, of course, completely welcome to participate. —Animum (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

A little pontification in response to your comment on the RfB thread

Speculating on psychological disorders isn't serious when all you've got to go on is a user page. Because it isn't serious but it's been done publicly, it's an insult. It's rude and unfair because there's no proper response that the victim can make. To ignore it may make some people suspect you're right, although ignoring it is better than responding, which makes your unserious point seem more serious, and he can't prove he doesn't have a disorder anyway -- who could prove an assertion like that? Just about anything he said in his defense could be an invasion of his own privacy. How could the rest of us possibly evaluate whether or not he had some disorder? You didn't need to bring up a psychological disorder to make your point, therefore it was really a personal attack, and I think you're very lucky no administrator blocked you. Advice: Don't speculate in public on someone's psychological fitness, sexual orientation, size of their private body parts, sinfulness, possession by demons, political or religious beliefs, whether or not they're headed for heaven or hell or their table manners. Not even if they're a candidate. Only bring up things like that when it's clearly necessary and when you have enough facts. It's the way you'd want to be treated if you were in the other person's shoes. I'm assuming you don't already know this -- an assumption of your good faith. -- Noroton (talk) 05:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your assumption of good faith, which I assure you I demonstrate. MBisanz's userpage clearly shows he's not exactly right in the head...and while I happen to be the first person who brought it up, you'll notice that no one exactly disagrees with that. We can sit here playing politically-correct games; or, alternatively, we can judge people based on their beliefs and actions. MBisanz's narcissism is clearly malignant, and as such, he should not hold positions of power. Keepscases (talk) 05:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

user page quotes

Hi, do you have diffs for the quotes displayed (and removed) on your userpage? Thanks. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, said comments were part of support number 17 here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=306748610#Alleged_incivility_and_soapboxing_by_Keepscases Why do you ask? Keepscases (talk) 12:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I knew you wouldn't just make shit up, but I was having trouble finding the diffs. I can't really comment on the behaviour of some other editors towards you, because Wikipedia has strict policies about No Personal Attacks etc. For what it's worth, I find most of your questions as useful, or more useful, as other RfA questions. Certainly they're not designed to trip people up, and they usually give the candidate a chance to talk about something they enjoy - that's surely a good thing. I also understand your desire to oppose NotVote for people who chose to display userboxes that you think are hateful, and your desire to allow those same users to keep displaying the userboxes. One gentle piece of advice I would offer is that when a bunch of people are poking you with sticks it's easy to lash out. They're wrong to be poking you with sticks, but other people will be waiting for you to lash out so they can have a clear diff demonstrating a blockable action. Please, wikipedia needs people like you, so go careful. Many Kind Regards, NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 01:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments. I definitely hope all the animosity is starting to die down now, and if I need to occasionally bite my tongue in order to help that happen, I'm going to try my best. Keepscases (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Atheists and RfA

Hi there. As a Christian who used to be strongly concerned about atheists i thought it might be worth saying something. Calling a user box saying"God made me an atheist..." confrontational seems a bit OTT. I dont want to take anthing away from our great commission, but God does seem to decide that some will be atheists. We can only know God when He wants us to (Proverbs 16:9 , John 6:44 , 1 Cor 12:3 ) and God sometimes deliberately hides Truth from some (Isaiah 6:9-12 , Isaiah 29:9-10, 2 Cor 4:3 – 4). Do you know that since the new atheists arrived on the scene circa 2006 , Christianity has enjoyed a resurgence by many different metrics? For example sales of the Bible increased by 120% when Dawkin's God Delusion came out. They seem to have helped us against the more effective forces operating against Christ which are apathy and materialism. IMO the impassioned militant atheist who wants to improve the world in their misguided way is closer to Christ than the luke warm Christian who pays lip service to our faith but lives their live selfishly. The last shall be first. Anyway , you seem to have caused at least one candidate to withdraw a non confrontation user box. US atheists often face strong persecution in real life, there are even about 5 states that have laws saying they arent allowed to hold public office. So surely they can be free from persecution on the web? – not saying you're doing that but youre close. In the name of our Lord please reconsider. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed community ban

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Keepscases:_proposed_community_ban_from_RFA_and_RFB. Erik9 (talk) 04:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm happy to see it was closed before I even saw it. Leave me alone. Keepscases (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your participation in my recent RfA. I am glad I managed to change your mind about me - I really am not a rabid atheist, on the contrary I am very interested in understanding religious people's views. I will do my very best not to betray the confidence you have shown me. If you ever have any questions or suggestions about my conduct as an administrator or as an editor please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thanks. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep it real

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For keeping it real Shii (tock) 19:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

RfA Questions

Hi, I have answered your questions as submitted per RfA for myself. Sincere regards, Pr3st0n (talk) 07:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Your question at ZooFari's RFA

Hi there. On Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ZooFari 3, you asked a rather unusual question: "Would you be willing to lend some of your efforts towards publishing Wikipedia in Braille?" [1] ZooFari has now withdrawn, so to an extent it doesn't matter, but I'm curious as to what made you ask this question. Do you think this is a major issue for would-be administrators? Do you think Wikipedia should be made more accessible to the blind? Have you made any effort towards doing this yourself? Or was this just meant as a joke? Forgive my curiosity, but it just seems like a rather baffling question to me, so I'm wondering what thinking lay behind it. Robofish (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Editor Review

I would appreciate your comment, if you don't mind. [2] Irbisgreif (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

I used to get a sort of sick pleasure out of changing mathematical articles. Most people don't realize the kind of stuff I'd change. I decided, about 2 years ago, to stop doing that. The main reason was running into one of my professors on here.

Every once in a while I wonder what it would be like to return to doing that. But I guess I've just grown up. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 02:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

archive

Hi Keepscases why don't you archive your talk page it's really too long --NotedGrant Talk 15:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Archiving your page isn't hiding the past Besides editors tend to make mistakes when they are newbies . Thanks for the response hope you have a good time editing wp :D .--NotedGrant Talk 15:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Did I forget to thank you? ..

Keepscases~enwiki ,Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- Tinu Cherian - 06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Pedophilia and Wikipedia

From what I gather from my cobweb-filled memory, the whole pedophilia and Wikipedia thing centered around two, maybe three factors:

• Pedophiles and their supporters using Wikipedia as a platform to push their agenda, or to counter-push against those with a contrary agenda. As with any topic, editors who pushed agendas in either direction found themselves called on the carpet for it.
• A concern for the off-wiki reputation for Wikipedia.
• The ewww factor.

I don't know of any editors that have a problem with the first item, as long as it is applied fairly and consistently to all editors on all sides of all controversial issues.

As for the second, while it's something I wish Wikipedia could ignore, there are real-world considerations that make it hard to ignore.

As for the third, we've seen from the recent RfB that most editors are beyond this, and can edit and administer without letting their personal emotions control their on-wiki behavior. However, there are editors who cannot. Given the topic, there are probably a sizable number of editors who, if asked privately, would endorse a "no pedophiles allowed, period" policy on purely emotional grounds. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The_United_States_Military_Code_of_Conduct

Hello. Several months back in my RfA you asked me what was wrong with this article and said my answer was wrong. Could you explain to me the issue with it? Thanks--v/r - TP 16:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I reread his comments and I understand better. I appreciate it, thanks.--v/r - TP 18:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which failed with 21 support, 39 oppose, and 11 neutral. This is highly belated, but I wanted to thank you for the support in the RfA discussion. I do apologize for taking so long to reply to you, after the failure I laid back for a while. I just dove into another article and am working more diligently on WP.

Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 22:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Network — there is no argument

One of the scripts that reside around the internet just has the "Airways" thing as two typos. I have a different script with a different date (which I bought years ago, pre-Internet) where it is "Airwaves." Also, the 1976 novelization has it as "Airwaves." I promise you, it is not "Airways" — because "Airways" makes no sense! There is no argument, only typos. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Fly, Eagles Fly

Hi Keepscases, Is there any way we can reach a compromise on this article? TIA --Tom (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Participation at my RfA

Thank you for taking the time to weigh in on my RfA. It was successful, in that the community's wish not to grant me the tools at this time was honored. I'm taking all the comments as constructive feedback and hope to become more valuable to the project as a result; I've also discovered several new areas in which to work. Because debating the merits of a candidate can be taxing on the heart and brain, I offer this kitten as a low-allergen, low-stress token of my appreciation. --otherlleft 13:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Help Page

Hey keepcases, I found this tool; at [3] for searching past revisions of a wiki page on the web, Its not as fast as a direct search, but its interesting, if you want to look into the revision history of a page. I havent used it much myself, but i think you have to specify the page that your searching (I dont think it will search all of wikipedia). Happy editing, hope it helps find your edit. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Why??? Just wondering.  7  23:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked???

At the risk of looking foolish, I just want to make sure that the Keepscases being blocked here is really the same person as the one who was blocked on Commons, since I remember reading a discussion earlier in which a third party stated that they were different and Keepscases agreed. I will look for somewhere more appropriate to bring this to wider intention (even if it turns out Im wrong and Keepscases really is a sock). —Soap— 01:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

And it seems that the second look confirmed that the block was correct after all. —Soap— 01:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

And it seems that a third, fourth, and possibly fifth look unconfirmed it. Sorry for the erronious edit to your user page earlier. Welcome back. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Mistakes happen! I may look into changing my name though. Keepscases (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back. And that might not be a bad idea, in case your ill-intentioned namesake causes problems again :) Orderinchaos 04:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You might also try to unify the remaining accounts, so no one will be able to register the same username elsewhere (and there won't be any doubts as to who is who). -- Mentifisto 10:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Keepscases, if I remember correctly you had stated before that you chose your username because it appeared in a CAPTCHA when you originally signed up at Wikipedia, is that correct? If that's true, then the likelihood of someone else picking your name is high since I assume other Wikimedia sites may use the same verification system. I do suggest either changing your name or unifying it to prevent future misunderstandings. -- Atama頭 16:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad it's sorted too. Kind of funny when you look at your user page. Just think what would have happened if you had been examining people further up the food chain ;-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

<--Keepsakes! So happy to see it was all a mistake. Glad you're back. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you for contributing to my RFA, I fully understood your concerns age wise.--SKATER ^Speak. 00:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Appeal

Keeps, I hope you dont mind this appeal about S Marshal, who has now withdrawn over drama resulting from the FSM oppose. It would be a great shame to loose one of the few genuinely fair and caring candidates over this.I used to have a stong concern about miliant atheists myself, so I maybe understand where youre comming from.

From his contribs, S Marshall doesnt seem to be a religion hating atheist, e.g. his recent keep vote on a religion article I also think he was genuinely trying to protect you from being ganged up on when he collaspsed the discussion. Misguised as youre obviously a tough cookie and assuming youre Chrisitan you have the Armour of God - but it shows is heart is in the right place.

I know the flying spagheti monster is used to redicule, but its can also be intended as just an honest and humorous expression of the bemusement atheists feel at religion (as God hides the Truth from them per the several scriptures i posted here before, the elabourate forms and rituals seem that way to them). Maybe this seems like no excuse for an image some will see as offensive, but on the other hand the Sickle or even the Cross is seen as threatening to some.

Simone Weil, described by Albert Camus as the only truly great soul of the 20th century, said that the atheist is in some ways closer to God than the agnostic or even the luke warm Christian as they have some of the same passion of the evangelical.

You havent said anything to give the impression you dont like atheists in power. Still its a common view per atheists not being allowed to hold public office in several US states and an increasing majority of voters saying they wont vote for an atheist president though they are happy with all other minorities. But while some militant atheists and aggressive secularists still seem to feel they have a chance to advance their agenda and publish call to arms articles, the tide has undeniably turned against them. Even christian writers on the subject like atheist no 3's brother Peter Hitchens dont seem aware of this. But the best available sources with analysts skilled enough to accurattely provide a global perspective are unaminous.

Some of the worlds most influential publically avaialble sources are The economist, Foregin Affairs magazine, and in Britain Prospect magazine. These are the sources read by leading politicans, CEOs , ect ect. Here is an article originally published in Foreign Affairs and now on Haravard talking about how religion is driving back secularism all over the world. Religion's Flame Burns Brighter Than Ever In an article published last month in Prospect Eric Kaufman had analasys to show that even here in secular Europe its inevitable that we will become more religous, due in part to the much higher birth rate of the Godly. A google for reviews of the 2009 book "God is back" by the editor of the economist should show almost unaminous agreement that the book succeeds in proving it theses that religion is returning to public life. The centuries long trend that has seen relgion steadilly retreat ever since the rennaisance is at last reversed. Its a great book btw with loads of good examples of ressurgent religion all around the world. So basically we can afford to give atheists some slack, even if they use the FSM badge! :-)

I will be posting more about why we need an admin like S Marshal on Pedros talk. If you are able to reassure S Marshal that you probably wont oppose his next RFA that would be really appreaciated. If not, I hope you at least found the above interesting!  :-) God bless. FeydHuxtable (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, dont blame you. FWIW i think opposing for religiously intolerant userboxes is totally valid. As i guess you know even in the last two years thousands have lost their lifes due to religious unrest around the 10th parallel including many Christians specifically at the hands of atheists in Laos, Burma and North Korea. I guess its just a shame to loose an all too rare exceptional candidate over whats maybe a borderline case. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson#Your Request for Adminship which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Herostratus

I certified his recall, but I have removed your comments at his RfA2 per WP:NPA, specifically "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." The comments were based on rumour and hearsay from Wikipedia Review. Please don't restore the comments. I would request that this is not taken to WP:AN/I to avoid unnecessary drama, and if you want to have a review of my action then I'd suggest consulting admins individually, but this only a request not an instruction. Fences&Windows 21:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding these rumours, you might be interested to see his comments at Wikipedia talk:Protecting children's privacy/Archive 1 and in the other archives, e.g. [4]. Fences&Windows 13:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to say here that your comments on Herostratus' RFA were exceedingly inappropriate, far more so than anything he has said or done himself that may justify the removal of his tools. It is ironic that in an RFA partly focused around the question of offensive comments about living people in Wikipedia-space, you made a highly offensive comment about a living person. I would advise you to read the guidance at the information page Wikipedia:Pedophilia: Because of the sensitivity of this type of allegation, all editors are asked to remain civil, and make no accusatory comments of any kind. If you think you have reason to believe a certain editor is a paedophile, then the thing to do is privately contact ArbCom with your concerns, and they will decide how to proceed; not accuse them directly on a talk page. That's the worst possible thing you could do. I'm not an admin myself, and you should be thankful for that, because if I was I would have blocked you indefinitely for those comments. Robofish (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're probably right... OK, reading it again, that post of mine above was pretty heated, and unnecessarily so. I'm sorry for saying you should be blocked; I withdraw that comment. You were right to raise your concerns, but I just want to make two points. Firstly, just because someone is editing heavily in a particular area doesn't necessarily mean you can make assumptions about that person: a user who focuses on fascism-related articles is not necessarily a fascist, a user who focuses on terrorism-related articles is not necessarily a terrorist, and a user who focuses on paedophile-related articles is not necessarily a paedophile. Secondly, as I've already made clear, you should not have raised your concerns in this way, but should have done so privately and in a manner less likely to provoke drama. That's all from me, thanks for reading. Robofish (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

I am sorry that you have misunderstood my meaning, which I explained on A3RO's talk page. In view of this, I will abide by your pretend block and not edit on August 19th. Let's be friends after that. Let's not allow A3RO to make us hate each others. OK?

To Keepscases

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If you remove your comment, I give you permission to also remove my comments above and below yours. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank semi-spam

Thanks for your support in my RfA. Though it may seem odd to say so, thanks also for taking the time to review my history - many would not have noticed those edits to my userpage, and few would have been so considerate in asking about it. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks spam

Hello Keepscases, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 65/4/3.
I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations, do my best for Wikipedia, and take to heart the constructive criticism. Always feel free to message me if I'm around.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Judgement

Can you explain why you don't trust my judgement, that's a serious allegation for someone who want to try RFA again in the future when I become stable. (I fucked up in my RFA i know, but I wasn't stable see my userpage). Secret ^account 18:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Elementally, my dear

This certainly brightened an otherwise dull and bureaucratic evening - thanks. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and if you ever need help from a janitor please feel free to drop me a line! Your apology was most welcome but unnecessary. Thank you for taking direct action after my last RfA and for helping to safeguard this project from sockpuppets. It meant a lot to me that you had the guts and sensibility to do so. I wish you the best of luck and hope our paths cross again! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

First user to respond...

...Wins what? ;-) Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks for this. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

questions

Hi Keepscases. With all due respect it appears (to me at least) that your work here at Wikipedia is focused almost entirely around RfA with little or no contribution in other areas. Some RfA candidates tend to take a jovial stance at your questions, while others clearly consider your contributions to be disruptive to the process. This is among some of the !voting trends that many concerned Wikipedians are trying to get changed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship where any suggestions you can make to help RfA become a fairer and more pleasant experience would be most welcome. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You and RFA

Hi, I have notice you have a pattern of asking questions on an RFA that do not pertain at all to being an administrator, and have little to no purpose. I have also come across a two oppose votes in which you provided no rationale; or a non-valid one; or opposed because of an anti-god userbox. (I have seen your RFC, you have not changed since it ended).

Here are some diff's

Non-constructive Questions:

• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]
• [13]
• [14]
• [15]
• [16]
• [17]
• [18]

Opposes:

• [19]
• [20]
• [21]

Why are you doing this? I don't see many edits that show you have any intent on improving the encyclopedia, rather just adding questions and voting on RFA's. Please be careful, if this continues, I may go to ANI or open up another RFC.

Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd kinda like to hear your response to this. I've actually defended a couple of your recent RfA questions but I'm starting to think perhaps my good faith is being misplaced.. -- œ^™ 16:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I added some more recent ones to the list now. It also seems that if the person answers your question you support them, and if they don't, or have tried to get you banned from RFA's, you oppose them....Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 17:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I've always thought Keepscases asks the best questions. A question doesn't always have to be about something that is directly related to adminship in order to be a useful question. Those kinds of off-topic questions allow everyone to get a better feel for the candidate's personality and attitude. Sometimes a strange question allows everyone to see how the candidate operates under pressure, or in unfamiliar situations. It reminds me of the types of questions that Google asks during job interviews. Clearly, organizing the shirts in your closet or estimating how many piano tuners there are in the world has nothing to do with programming advanced databases, but it does allow them to see the candidate's problem solving skills under pressure. My opinion is that starting a RFC or an ANI thread would be a massive assumption of bad faith (i.e. that you believe Keepscases is doing this in an attempt to be disruptive), and the only result would be the generation of copious amounts of wikidrama. I'd suggest getting back to building an encyclopedia. SnottyWong ^yak 00:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, most of the diffs you provided above show questions that are perfectly fine. Only a minority of those questions are really off-the-wall. There is nothing abnormal about asking why a user removed userboxes from their user page, how old a user is (especially for a known teenage user, and the age thing became a major focus of the RfA later), if a user has ever edited WP in an intoxicated state, etc. I'll admit that asking if chimpanzees should be allowed to register an account on Wikipedia is a bit strange, but the creativity of the answer to the question will allow us to gauge the creativity level of the candidate. RfA is not supposed to be like being interrogated by the FBI. Interjecting a bit of humor to lighten what is often a very harsh process should not be viewed as disruption. SnottyWong ^squeal 01:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)But you see, Keepscases doesn't build WP. He only votes on RFA's, or so it seems. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

My point is Keepscases doesn't do much to contribute to Wikipedia. Look over his contributions; most of his contributions are on RFA's, not articles. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Editors are free to contribute to wikipedia in any constructive way they please. If Keepscases considers his or her principal contirbution to the project is to be participation in RfA, there is nothing wrong with that unless it is done in a disruptive manner. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Were all entitled to our own opinion regarding Keepscases questions. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course you are. I'm merely refuting the other point you're making: that contributing to RfA and doing not much else is necessarily a bad thing. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Asking questions at RfA is contributing, as Snottywong and Mkativerata have said. Keepscases is not accountable to you for his contributions to Wikipedia and criticising them when they are well within policy doesn't seem very WP:NICE Alistair Stevenson (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I meant contributions to articles, building the ol 'pedia. I don't have a problem with him asking questions at RFA, I have a problem with the kinds of questions they ask at RFA. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I could not agree more with Snottywong. Some of the questions may not be valuable in and of themselves, but the candidate's reaction to them is useful in judging how they might react, as an admin, to similar unexpected inquiries from a new user. Do they get sarcastic and blow up at the questioner? Do they answer calmly and honestly, pointing out that they disagree with the premise of the question, if needed? Are the answers thoughtful, or dismissive, or evasive? This is all valuable information. Tofutwitch11, I know you mean well and are only trying to improve the RfA process, but statements like "Please be careful, if this continues, I may go to ANI or open up another RFC" are really uncalled for. Keepscases is not being disruptive – he's only asking a single question of each candidate, which the candidate may or may not choose to answer – and there's no reason to bully or threaten him. 28bytes (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to bully or threaten him. I wanted a reason as to why he does what he does. As 28bytes said, I just want to clean RFA up a bit, and these questions don't seem to fit in (in my mind). Keepscases has been to ANI and RFC before and I have viewed them both. People either like his questions or they don't. I would love if Keepscases would contribute in this discussion. Anyway, Now it just seems that I'm just making more enemies. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't consider you an enemy at all: I consider you a good editor who's interested in improving things. Best, 28bytes (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, Thanks. I wasn't trying to cause all this hubub, rather get a straight answer from Keepscases and would have moved on. That's all I really was looking for, reasoning behind his questions on RFA. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Next time you might want to think about omitting the threats of starting RfC's and ANI threads from your initial attempt to "get a straight answer and move on." Or, better yet, just don't make those threats at all. If you have evidence that someone is doing something disruptive, then just start the ANI thread, no need for threats first. You'll find you get a much straighter answer from people if they think you're genuinely looking for their perspective, as opposed to digging for evidence with which to punish them. SnottyWong ^speak 02:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Except in the event of an RfA being a very close call, I don't see Keepscases' questions as as having much effect on the overall !voting. Candidates are also quite at liberty to to ignore them, and many do. However, copious drama has turned the RfA process into such an unpleasant environment that there is a dearth of candidates for it, and in the broader move to clean up RfA, many users have queried Keepscases' motivations now and in the past. Tofutwich is part of the community, and expresses a legitimate concern of many who are part of it.
How Tofutwitch may have worded his message is a separate issue. Kudpung (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally I don't have any problems with his questions, What I want to know is, what's with the sole interest in RfA? Does he not have any interest in building content at all? or even simple gnome work? That's the response I was looking for.. and of course he's not accountable to me or anyone for his contributions, but his behaviour sure is raising eyebrows.. -- œ^™ 10:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

OE: That's exactly what I was getting at. Why do most of your on Wiki work asking questions in RFA's? I didn't look over his contribs untill I realized he asked those type of questions on most RFA's. I wanted to know why he asks those q's at RFA's and doesn't do much on the part of (to avoid bieng yelled at for saying contributing) editing articles and improving articles. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 13:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I noticed the same thing when I confronted him about his recent oppose based on an anti-God userbox. It does seem odd that the vast majority of his/her edits are at RfA's. I'm not sure how someone with only 1,500 edits would be an expert on who is fit for adminship, unless this isn't their first account here. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 15:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ironically, I noticed all this today because I just logged in because I noticed an error in an article that I wanted to correct. I'm still going to go ahead and do that right now. Keepscases (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice dodge. I see yet again you return only to oppose on another RfA. Whatever, I don't really care that much. But you should know that as it becomes more and more obvious that you're apparently an SPA, your RfA votes will be given less and less weight, if they're not already. -- œ^™ 05:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)