Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Keepscases

I find "disingenuous" (in this edit) to be a personal attack.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Why? You've claimed this is about Keepcases opposing atheists. Keepcases has made it clear he does not oppose atheists, just those who display the 'imaginary friends' UBX (or those who are part of a wiki project where that UBX is displayed, but he has since expressed regret for that particular oppose.) This would clearly fall into some definition of disingenuous. (And I hope it falls into the incorrect definition of naive). NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As a user who comes at this from an utterly neutral perspective...

As it would happen, I actually had written a rather lengthy observation on this issue which I come to from a place of complete neutrality. However, I instead decided that there is not sufficient evidence presented for me, or any neutral person to make a judgement in this matter. Based on the evidence I've seen presented, I don't see even a Prima facie case to warrant this seemingly extraordinary inquisition...   bsmithme  08:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No reason for this RfC

We were shown that there was no consensus for an RfA ban in the relevant ANI thread. While I obviously supported a ban, I will also certainly support community consensus. The witchhunt should stop. Tan | 39 13:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that RfCs don't often close with sanctions (they can't, unless a straightforward policy violation which had been missed earlier is found), this RfC could have a helpful outcome, such as noting there is an ongoing lack of consensus, policy-wise or whatever, as to what's ok and what's not ok to bring up in an RfA, along with "soapboxy question spamming." Gwen Gale (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

An RfC could have a helpful outcome. This RfC will not. Tan | 39 13:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There I go again, maybe hoping too much. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I can certainly appreciate Tan's view here. Keepcases has without a doubt tried the community's patience to its limit. I don't know if this particular RFC will gather any steam, or how well various viewpoints will be stated - but (like Gwen), I hope that Keepcases gets a clue here and realizes he's on his last legs. I hate the hell out of censorship, and I think everyone has a right to !vote as they so please, but at some point, common sense, and disruption, have to take precedent over "policy violations". — Ched :  ?  14:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It sounds to me that if enough people think someone is "being disruptive" but that person is not violating any actual rule, then the system is broken. If the system is broken, fix the system instead of taking the argument to the person.   bsmithme  19:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Like that hasn't been tried several dozen times. Tan | 39 19:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This reminds me a lot of the U.S. Senate rules on filibustering. This would be much like expelling a member of the Senate for "abuse" of filibustering, even though there is absolutely no rule against it. Consider what precedent would be set by such actions.   bsmithme  19:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keepscases is not going to discontinue this behavior because of an RFC. I think what he is doing is childish, but I think that creating more drama is not helping either.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If he hasn't been indefinitely blocked by now, he is a waste of our time. No serious editor takes him seriously. His votes are most probably discounted, and his questions are a running joke. Indef him, or ignore him, but don't waste the community's time. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It also seems that Keepscases one oppose breeds four or five supports. So in other words, his oppose is usually diregarded, and more supports are added.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

How on earth you reconcile that statement with your comment in the Baseball Bugs section below is your own business, Gordon. Keepscases (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to Jeff G.

The full quote is actually "I see no clear consensus that within an RfA, soapboxy questions, alikened across many RfAs, should be kept out of the discussion or otherwise banned". Icewedge (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the parent subsection #Additional view by Jeff G. was to establish the existence (or lack) of such a consensus. "Users who endorse this summary" will serve as the negative for my additional view.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Moved per discussion. Jeff G., please take another look through the RfC guidelines - specifically, the "Do not post "disagreement" endorsements" part. Additionally, given that you certified this dispute, your additional view has been moved to that section. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

canvassing?

How neutral should wording be when editors canvas wiki projects? I'm gently concerned that this diff [[1]] is not as neutral as it could be. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That's about as non-neutral as you can get.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I've left a courtesy note informing him of this section.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. I apologise for not doing it. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just removed it. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 19:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and mentioned this at Jeff's page, but I am starting to find his behavior bordering on harassment. He is going out of his way to try to get people he thinks will support his position against Keeps by posting everywhere he can as often as he can. His notices have passed the point of being friendly neutral notes to, blatant canvassing... of the worst sort. Does Canvass happen? Yes. But his behavior is reaching the point that he might find himself at ANI. And it really does mean something when I am defending Keeps....---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That looked like canvassing to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Atama's outside view

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,

It's odd, and frustrating, that people sometimes NotVote for very similar reasons to keepcases but don't get the pile on that he does.

I've suggested that Keepscases focus on having offensive userboxes removed from Wikipedia, [. . .]But protesting them at an RfA is disrupting to make a point

Keepcases has been clear that he wants editors to have the freedom to display those userboxes, and he has the freedom to question the judgement of those editors because of their choice. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

the baseball bugs rfa diff?

I don't know why this [[2]] diff keeps being posted as evidence of disruption. Please, can someone explain how that comment is disruptive? (Especially in the context of that particular RfA) NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that is disruption, but I think people have a problem with it because it is a support for a reason that is not a direct reflection of the editor being reviewed.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Not disruptive at all... at that point the RfA was a forgone conclusion... and the !vote was part of Bugs request/joke or something. To use it as evidence of disruption is fallacious. I'm sorry, there are a lot better pieces of evidence that when people throw the kitchen sink at an RfC to make it look worse, it usually backfires.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC) PS, if there is any fall back on this !vote, then RfA would be in a world more of hurt than meets the eyes... people often give interesting answers in the Support section. Personally, I'd be more concerned with "Supporter per X" where X was an opposer.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)