User talk:Keepscases~enwiki/Archive 3

Archiving
I noticed the comment about archiving on your userpage. I can set up automatic archiving for you if you'd like. -- Lear's Fool sock 05:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, that'd be very kind of you. Keepscases (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've set it up so that threads that have been inactive for a month will be automatically archived into successive archives. I've also added a navigation box to the top of this page. The particular parameters can be adjusted in an invisible template at the very top of this page. The bot should come by and archive in the next 48 hours; I'll keep an eye out for any problems. -- Lear's Fool mobile 02:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, this looks great. Keepscases (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm not sure it's worked properly. I might have a shot at fixing it manually some time today.  -- Lear's Fool 00:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It did, but the ones without timestamps won't be archived by the bot. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 01:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Belief v. Organisation
Well, breaking a cardinal rule of the internet (never debate religion :)): religious belief is entirely personal and can be seperate from being part of a religious organisation. Sure those could be Christian/Islam/Hindu forms of belief. But that does not make you part of an organisation within those religions. As to my own viewpoint; I don't have a belief in any deity - but have no issues with people that do. But I do dislike religious organisations because in both the past and present they are forms of control.

In terms of that infobox... I did carefully consider the wording to avoid being confrontational - the important thing, I feel, is to establish that religion (or, rather, articles about religious organisations) is the arena where my objectivity may not hold up. It concerns me enough to want some way of expressing the issue publicly, that way if I do end up editing those articles badly someone will notice and trout me. --Errant (chat!) 02:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keepscases, Errant has changed the userbox. Would you mind taking a second look?--Chaser (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Your RfA question
I know there has been discussion from time to time in the past regarding questions you ask on RfAs. In my view, the question you posed at Requests for adminship/Snottywong was stunningly inappropriate. Although the candidate lived up to the challenge of treating your question non-seriously and provided an acceptable response, there has been increasing concern recently about experienced editors' not wanted to go through the RfA process. In that regard, I can't help considering questions of this type to be disruptive and inappropriate, and I must insist that you not post any more of this nature. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How can a question that a person is free to ignore possibly be disruptive? Keepscases questions test temperament, but they are not demanding as they have no obvious correct answers; it is for the community to decide whether a serious, a humorous or silent response is the right reaction to them. Surely the optional questions that make specific challenges on a candidate's contributions or interactions are more likely to put editors off the RfA process since they involve direct scrutiny perhaps going back many years? In any case, to attribute the lack of adminship candidates to Keepscases questions seems far fetched. Keepscases has the right to ask these questions and the community has the right to hear and judge candidates' responses to them. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I respectfully but strongly disagree; see my comments in response to a similar post from another editor on my talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever your views, there are editors who disagree (including myself). I don't think it is helpful for an arb of all people to "insist" that another editor should alter their behaviour to comply with your views. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Newyorkbrad and the many other editors who have commented here about this issue. Keepscases has the right to ask these questions and the community has the right to suggest that Keepscases should stop asking them.  While I appreciate humor and agree that one cannot take oneself too seriously, Keepscases single minded focus in asking these questions appears (by the constant questioning on this page) to have become a distraction to the RFA process.   7  01:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I knew I could not possible be the only person to feel this way! Don't think Keepscases is ever going to give us a direct answer, so posting here is somewhat useless, but the questions get old. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 03:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not useless; the warnings provide a basis for appropriate action if that becomes necessary, which I hope it will not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I won't re-hash my comments in the above threads except to say that requesting Keepscases ask fewer or less unorthodox questions, and threatening consequences if he doesn't are two entirely different things, and I sincerely hope people consider sticking with the first approach if they don't like his questions. Snottywong has already been asked seventeen (!) questions so far in his RfA, and if one of the seventeen is silly/off-topic/weird/whatever, that doesn't strike me as something to get overly concerned over, especially given that Snottywong himself has said he enjoys Keepscases' questions. Let's just leave Keepscases be. 28bytes (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * NYB you appear to be throwing your weight around here without knowing much of the history. The issue has been to an RFC/U. The RFC/U fell way short of a consensus that Keepscases' RfA conduct, including the fun questions, was in any way problematic. The community has already considered, and rejected, "appropriate action". --Mkativerata (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See my talk page for a partial collection of threads caused by Keepscases, mostly down to problematic RFA questions. The last RFC was nearly 2 years ago, perhaps opinions are different now. We need to stop bending over backwards to make this sort of thing welcome. There are enough questions at RFA without silly joke ones. AD 19:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * RfA isn't a game, and we shouldn't be allowing silly questions like that. Now they're also opposing candidates with no comments. They haven't responded to any of the concerns, either verbally or in their actions, so it's pretty evident they're not acting in good faith. Nor is it helpful when their supporters are being hostile to the complaints.  Swarm   X 20:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To be fair, a Proposal for Keepscases topic ban from RfA was closed a no-consensus, with more supporting a ban than not, so I don't feel that one can say we were "way short of a consensus." In addition to his inane questions, Keepscases has made it abundantly clear that "No member of "WikiProject Atheism" should represent Wikipedia as an administrator", because of what he feels are objectionable userboxes by some members of that WikiProject. I applaud NYB for trying to put a stop to this behaviour, for what I frankly think is little more than trolling, and which only further cheapens RfA. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Shawn in Montreal, please don't talk about being "fair" when a year and a half later, you're still picking and choosing my words to try and make me look bad without showing my full statement from that time, and certainly not this later comment, from the very link you provide, from August 8, 2009:

"For the record, I concede that that particular vote may have been a mistake on my part. Tedder seemed to be genuinely unaware of that userbox, disapproving of its contents, not closely connected with the project anyway, and understanding of my vote. I have wished him well. Keepscases (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry Shawn, have you been missing that for a year and a half? Of course you haven't. You stalk me on Wikipedia, and virtually every comment of yours is disingenuous, claiming I'm prejudiced against atheists when I have shown quite clearly that that's not the case.

Shame on you and your whiny little persecution complex. You spit on the legacies of African-Americans, who were denied the right to vote and the right to eat at whatever restaurants and drink from whatever water fountains they wished...by actually comparing yourself to them, on your newly updated user page, because some guy on the Internet doesn't appreciate certain hateful atheist userboxes. You should be ashamed of yourself. Keepscases (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My reference to Jim Crow wasn't to myself, but to the you're-not-welcome-here vibe you seem to give off to every declared atheist RfA candidate. As for stalking you, I come to RfA each time hoping you won't be there. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoa, easy there, let's all try to step back a bit before this escalates any further. Perhaps it would be better to either end this discussion, or continue it in a forum where broader community input can be sought.  There are obviously differences of opinion here, but I'm not sure how much there is to be gained in further airing grievances on this page.  -- Lear's Fool 04:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ending it is fine with me. Shawn knows he got owned. Keepscases (talk) 04:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Keepscases, could you please ask more food-related questions? They're more interesting to read, especially if they're realistic. Butter or margarine, maybe? / ƒETCH COMMS  /  05:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We shall see. I don't plan them in advance. Keepscases (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No, please don't. To be honest, I don't think I've ever seen a question from you at RFA that actually provides a useful insight into the candidate's suitability as an admin. There are more than enough questions without extras with no merit being added on top. I'm sure you realise that when the vast majority of your edits are to RFA, there's something very wrong with your participation here. Furthermore, RFAs are not somewhere for you to soapbox anti-atheism. I'm sure you're quite aware of the irritation caused by your participation and the morale of an already unpleasant process you're damaging. Please do something a little more useful - maybe writing an article? AD 14:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? They give me some insight, even if it's sometimes only "how will the candidate respond to this?"; it also makes RfA seem a bit lighter and humorous, although I don't know if the questions are intended to be funny. Bureaucrats are smart enough to determine consensus; Keepscases' questions don't hurt anyone and his opinions are his own. I hate badgering, except when the badger is funny. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  23:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If I wasn't seeing behavior such as this and this, I would be more inclined to agree with you. It's not exactly harmless fun, and Keepscases isn't even attempting to justify themselves to the numerous users who have brought up concerns.  Swarm   X 12:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

A VERY good question
I have noticed on the Neelix RfA that  you  have posed a different  kind of question. I don't  ask questions  at  an RfA, but if I would, your question  for Neelix happens to be the very  question  I  would be asking,  and I  have very often though  of posing  it. I thank you  for this, and I'm sure that if you continue to  ask questions like this, you would quickly gain a lot of respect, and we can drop our constant  bickering. I'm sure you  don't  treat  Wikipedia as a joke -  if you  did, you  would probably  not  be here at  all. --Kudpung (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Your question
Sorry for bumping it down, that was unintentional. I don't normally cut in line like that. 28bytes (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Keepscases! I wanted to let you know that I sent you an e-mail. I'm looking forward to your response. Best. Acalamari 15:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

That RfA reform thing
Kudpung has asked me to 'nudge' some people .. as I'm an idle get, I'm just going through the entire Task Force list so my apologies if you didn't need a nudge! You can slap me about over on WP:EfD if you like :o) Straw polling various options: over here - please add views, agree with views, all that usual stuff. Pesky  ( talk ) 12:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Resp. to RFA questions
Hello, I have answered your question at Requests for adminship/Sadads, Sadads (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Your comment about RfA: Atheism project?
Hi!

You gave the impression that you were neutral because the nominator was part of the atheism project. (Sometimes, such neutrality statements can be ironic, or refer to personal arcane interaction, so I write "impression".)

Would you please consider the number of theists, agnostics, and back-sliders (like myself) also supporting the nomination, and kindly reconsider your position?

Also, you might find interesting the book by Paul Ricouer and Alasdair MacIntyre on The Religious Significance of Atheism, or indeed John Milton on atheism in Areopagitica: I did!

Thanks, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 19:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * More importantly, could explain how atheism is a "hate group"? Ironholds (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack by Snottywong

 * Seriously, why don't you try to keep your religious biases out of your opinions at RfA (and anywhere else, for that matter). No one cares which version of the 2,000-year-old fairy tale you believe in, and nothing could be further from relevant when voting for adminship.  No one likes people who constantly refer to their religion, push their religion on others, or publicly announce that the decisions they make are based on their religion.  If anything, it makes you look more like an idiot.  &mdash;SW&mdash; gossip 21:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Snottywong, your personal attacks violate WP's prohibition on religious insults:
 * "personal attacks based on ... religion ... of an editor are often grounds for an immediate, indefinite block until the remarks are retracted."
 * Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 22:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

"Hate group"

 * The same can be applied to Keepscases "hate group" attack. AD 23:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the "official" invisible pink unicorn user-box? The word "hate" is much too strong, but he has a point. Such user-boxes are incompatible with the Atheism project statement that it welcomes non-atheists who wish to improve content about atheism. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "No one likes people who constantly refer to their religion, push their religion on others, or publicly announce that the decisions they make are based on their religion." You will, of course, be unable to provide any instance of me doing this. I label WikiProject Atheism as a hate group based on the nasty, confrontational userboxes featured on its page.  Keepscases (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You're quite out-of-touch here; those are opinions. "Hate-groups", on the other hand, are people who lynch and kills blacks, hunt gay people through the streets, and advocate on behalf of those who do. None of these userboxes says anything like "This user advocates the lynching and murder of XYZ." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WikiProject: Atheism is clearly a hate group by Wikipedia's own definition. Keepscases (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm... well, I didn't start the section, but you might want to defend that view @ Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I quote the definition of "hate group" from WP's article: "'promote animosity, hostility, and malice against persons belonging to a ... religion, ... which differs from that of the members of the organization'." (I dislike Keepscases's characterization, but this may be what he means.) Kiefer .Wolfowitz 00:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Official

 * This box seems inappropriate for the project, but it is the only official user-box hostile or mocking theism. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 00:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a collection of unofficial user-boxes at that page, which are more hostile. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 00:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That "unofficial" designation doesn't do anything for me. If it's on the group's own page, it's plenty "official". Keepscases (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That "unofficial" designation doesn't do anything for me. If it's on the group's own page, it's plenty "official". Keepscases (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Pink Unicorn?

 * I am feeling quite stupid here. This is a genuine question from someone totally befuddled. What is hateful about a pink unicorn? Obviously I am missing something of considerable moment. Bielle (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Whilst I'm not convinced the pink unicorn is the actual userbox in question (there are definitely others that are likely considered more controversial) you could read up on invisble pink unicorns to draw your own conclusions. -- Club Oranje T 05:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

"Imaginary friends"
I don't know if there have been previous MfDs for some of these user boxes, but labeling peoples' holy figures as "imaginary friends" is not at all conducive to a environment of collaboration. While I don't think "hate group" is the right term (it's less hate and more insensitivity, I think), I don't see how religion should be relevant on Wikipedia except for stating a potential COI, and any comments on the validity of others' personal beliefs are inappropriate for discussion on this project. Likewise, any attempts to proselytize other users should not be found in on-wiki conversation. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Directly discussing issues with WikiProject Atheism

 * The userbox that refers to deities as "imaginary friends" was inappropriate and it has been removed. In the future, rather than bringing up a problem in a user's RfA whose nominator happens to be a member of a wikiproject that happens to have a 'unofficial userboxes' section which happens to contain an inappropriate userbox that was created by a user who is not even a part of said wikiproject, please feel free to:
 * Stop.
 * Think.
 * Remove the problem.
 * As I'm sure you've noticed, raising the problem in an request for adminship will result in:
 * ANI threads
 * Block discussions
 * Incivility
 * Flame Warring
 * Drama.
 * So, keeps, from one editor to another, if you see a problem, please fix it rather than turning RfA, ANI and your talk page into a dramafest that doesn't improve Wikipedia or anybody's lives. Thanks, and best regards.  Swarm   X 06:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I wrote a short note on the talk page of the atheism project. One of the user-boxes has already been removed. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 14:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Keepscases, It seems that you have made such "hate group" complaints before, but I cannot find any evidence on the talk page of the WikiProject Atheism that you have contacted them, per good-faith channels. If you haven't, then your comments about LadyofS were even more improper. (The project has already removed one user-box.)
 * I continue to believe that SnottyWong owes you an apology, but now I believe that you owe the LadyofS an apology yourself. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Keepscases, can I ask you why you think that it is a hate group? T ofutwitch11  (T ALK )
 * He explained that above: "I label WikiProject Atheism as a hate group based on the nasty, confrontational userboxes featured on its page." As to whether the removal of one userbox (which has been kept at two MfDs, actually, though neither of them recent) alleviates the issue, I cannot say. I don't think any statement that disparages or dismisses the beliefs of a user or group of users is appropriate for a userbox because Wikipedia is meant to be collaborative. You can say, "I believe in God" or "I am an atheist" or "I believe in an invisible pink unicorn", but it's quite rude to say, "God is a fairy tale", because that only causes divisions between users. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  00:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * None of that has anything to do with WP atheism. A now-retired user created an inflammatory userbox and someone put it on the Wikiproject's unofficial userboxes. It seems like a failure of that projects coordinators/members to allow it to stay there, but saying "god is a fairytale" certainly doesn't mean "this user hates Christians". As to whether it alleviates the issue, what is the issue? I thought it was the Wikiproject page hosting the inappropriate userbox. I removed it. What could possibly be an outstanding problem?  Swarm   X 01:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So the userbox "This user believes the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion" gets to stay? That's acceptable?  That's not obvious hate speech?  How about (for example) "This user believes the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without Jews."  Because that IS (amongst other things) what that userbox states.  Keepscases (talk) 01:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh and for the record SwarmX, that "unofficial" section was just an attempt by WikiProject:Atheism to keep a nasty userbox they'd caught flak for numerous times, on its page, while at the same time denying responsibility for it. Look into it if you wish. Keepscases (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Swarm, the problem is the mentality of disrespect that some users wish to express. "God is a fairy tale" does not directly imply "This user hates Christians", but it does imply "This user thinks Christians are foolish for believing in God". And I'm not going to get into the whole "Is there a Jewish ethnicity?" debate, but I strongly resent the statement in the "happier ..." userbox as well. Perhaps replacing "religion" with "radical jihadists and the hate-inciting Westboro Baptist Church" would make it more accurate to what the userbox's creator thinking, but lumping all "religions" into a concept that creates an unsafe world when certain religions are about peace and happiness is completely absurd and, again, belittling to some users' personal beliefs. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  01:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fetchcomms, while I admire your attempt to assume good faith, I find it very hard to believe that userbox is based on radical jihadists and the Westboro Baptist Church. Keepscases (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "This user believes the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion" isn't hate speech. If it said "Muslims" or "Jews" or even "religious people" you might have a bit stronger case because it would be attacking a specific group. It's not, however, it's saying the concept of religion is bad, not any one group of people. If you feel so strongly about it, though, why don't you actually do something?  Swarm   X 17:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Good consequences

 * -> I would suggest a subtle protest by declaring one will not support an RfA being promoted by those that tacitly support this view by association (being a member of wikiproject openly displaying the userboxes) is actually doing something. And to an extent has actually achieved something; Not only has it sparked some (healthy?) debate, it has also resulted in removal of userbox(es) from the wikiproject page. -- Club Oranje T 08:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

"A world without religion"?

 * A world without religion is a world without religious people. If I have no place in the world, where and who says, shall I live? My76Strat  talk  20:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a sensible topic to discuss, really. It can only lead to drama. But I would point out that religion and religious people (or, better, people with beliefs) are two different things. What the userbox is likely saying is that it disagrees with organised religions. It's not necessarily an atheist viewpoint; an ex of mine, a "born again" Christian considered organised religions highly divisive, dangerous and controlling. --Errant (chat!) 21:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A userbox which says "This user believes the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion" does not imply that "This user believes the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without Jews". Jewish people are not a religion, they are just people.  It does imply that "This user believes the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without Judaism", which is a distinctly different statement.  The religion is the problem, not the people.  Saying that you think the world would be better without religion is not a personal attack on a group of people, it is only a statement about organized religion itself.  If I have a userbox which says "I don't like apples", does that imply that I think all people who like apples are idiots?  &mdash;SW&mdash; gab 22:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And let me repeat my assertion that criticizing someone's religion shouldn't be considered any more "insulting" than criticizing someone's political affiliations. Religion doesn't need to be put on a pedestal.  I wrote this in response to one of Keepscases' earlier religion-inspired RfA opposes:
 * The point here is that this oppose is based entirely on the flawed (but surprisingly pervasive) notion that religion holds some kind of elevated, privileged status above other topics, whereby it cannot and should not be publicly ridiculed in any way. Richard Dawkins writes that "A widespread assumption, which nearly everybody in our society accepts - the non-religious included - is that religious faith is especially vulnerable to offence and should be protected by an abnormally thick wall of respect, in a different class from the respect that any human being should pay to any other."  He follows it up with a poignant quote from Douglas Adams:
 * "Religion...has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. What it means is, 'Here is an idea or notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? - because you're not!'  If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it.  If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it.  But on the other hand if somebody says 'I musn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say, 'I respect that'.  Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Labour party or the Conservative party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows - but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created the Universe - no, that's holy? ... Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why these ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be."
 * If you think about it from a reasonable perspective, there is nothing inherently confrontational or offensive about declaring that you believe God to be a myth or a superstition. Comparing the userbox to another which states that gays are disgusting or black people are stupid is an invalid comparison, because being gay or black is not a conscious choice you make.  Religion (or lack thereof) is simply a belief, something you consciously choose to either believe in or not.  You have the right to believe that there is a bearded man in the clouds who grants your wishes, and I have the right to believe that it's a completely fabricated story created millenia ago for the purposes of gaining power and controlling the populace.  We both have an equal right to passionately express our beliefs.  &mdash;SW&mdash; comment 23:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think about it from a reasonable perspective, there is nothing inherently confrontational or offensive about declaring that you believe God to be a myth or a superstition. Comparing the userbox to another which states that gays are disgusting or black people are stupid is an invalid comparison, because being gay or black is not a conscious choice you make.  Religion (or lack thereof) is simply a belief, something you consciously choose to either believe in or not.  You have the right to believe that there is a bearded man in the clouds who grants your wishes, and I have the right to believe that it's a completely fabricated story created millenia ago for the purposes of gaining power and controlling the populace.  We both have an equal right to passionately express our beliefs.  &mdash;SW&mdash; comment 23:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, I'm not going to debate the merits of considering Jewish people as an ethnicity/nationality or purely as followers of a religious group—and there are strong arguments on both sides—but if the world was a saner place without Judaism, then that implies the world would be better without Judaism's followers or if its followers changed their mindsets, because the only way Judaism can fail to exist is if it has no followers. But either way, saying the world would be safer without Judaism implies that Judaism is harmful, in which case one would be creating division among other users—something that Wikipedia does not need. I could say that the world would be a safer and saner place without mothers-in-law—and that might actually be true—but it's not a polite thing to do, given that many of our users are mothers-in-law. I don't care whether you think Jews or Judaism is the dangerous one—making such a statement about either is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Saying, "This user is against organized religion" is more polite than, "This user thinks organized religion harms the world and contributes to its insanity".

In addition, I wholly agree with your point that religion should not be "put on a pedestal". The discussion of the merits or the belittlement of one's political opinions and other such views does not have its place on Wikipedia user pages. There are two issues with that quote by Adams: one, regardless of whether religion should be placed on a pedestal and not discussed, the fact is that people do think that way, and making statements about their beliefs is going to offend them—just like the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Snyder v. Phelps (2010) that protesting at funerals is allowed, doesn't mean it's not hurtful, so we should not be abusing what might be allowed (see below) if it will cause distress to a significant number of people; and two, simply that debate of these ideas does not belong on Wikipedia. I love discussing these topics with friends, but I don't bring a "Jesus rocks" sticker to my office or start talking about the perils of Barack Obama's healthcare plan at work. I also agree that expressing such views is acceptable—but on Wikipedia, doing so "passionately" often causes issues between users and when a more "neutral" (I hasten to use that word because opinions aren't neutral, but I'm not sure what the best word for it is; maybe "calm" is what I mean?) statement of opinion would suffice. In fact, Wikipedia is a private organization and "freedom of speech" or "freedom of expression" is not guaranteed here at all, while in the United States, one can go around burning flags and picketing at funerals. If the Wikimedia Foundation so desired, it could order the deletion of all user pages and user boxes pertaining to Buddhism, neo-liberalism, and philately, and no one could argue. We're really quite fortunate that user pages are available here (although sometimes I wish they weren't due to MySpacey teenagers who need to get a life).

Also, I disagree that being gay is not a conscious choice, but that's irrelevant here. And while many organizations believe that blacks are inferior to whites or that homosexuality is a blight upon society, the simple existence of these views does not give them the right to advertise their beliefs on Wikipedia. I don't care how much anyone calls for the abolishment of organized religion on his or her personal website, but on a collaborative project like Wikipedia, implying that organized religion causes harm or chaos is only going to cause this sort of chaos, so—rights or no rights—why do something that will hurt other people? The goal of Wikipedia is to bring people together, not split them apart.

/ ƒETCH COMMS  /  00:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Purpose of RfA

 * This entire thread is irrelevant - at least at its current venue. The most  important  issue, is that nobody, absolutely  nobody, should be allowed to use RfA as a soapbox for their POV pushing, especialy  knowing  full  well that  it  will  once again flame in to polemic. This issue has now driven at  lest  one good editor into  retirement  from  Wikipedia -  thank you  Keepscases. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My "POV" happens to be absolutely in line with Wikipedia's policies. I do not have to support candidates with connections to a hate group.  If an editor retires because I had the audacity to cast a neutral vote--sorry, I won't be losing any sleep. Keepscases (talk) 12:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Your POV happens to be about as far as it can possibly get from being in line with WP policy. If WikiProject Atheism is a hate group, then take it to MfD or RfC and get it disbanded.  That will show that your POV is in line with WP policy.  Hate groups don't get their own WikiProjects, and this would be clear to you if you had ever made any edits outside of RfA (i.e. if you have ever done anything useful here).  There is no WikiProject Skinheads or WikiProject God Hates Fags.  But while WikiProject Atheism is still active, shut the hell up and keep your misguided religious blubbering to yourself.  &mdash;SW&mdash; spout 14:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry—did you not read what I said above about making Wikipedia a collaborative environment? The next time anyone tells someone else to "shut the hell up", I'll just block them. It seems that there is no good faith or collaboration or any sort of politeness on Wikipedia anymore. Furthermore, labeling opinions as "misguided religious blubbering'' is something you've been told not to do, and I'm wondering right now how far WP:INVOLVED can stretch before blocks are dished out. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  14:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a pretty steady bias towards defending Keepscases' "opinions" that atheists are a hate group, while simultaneously threatening to block me when I take offense to such a statement. That doesn't seem very even-handed or "collaborative" to me.  I'm sure I would get a similar reaction from many people if I made "neutral" RfA votes based on my "opinion" that WikiProject Islam is a hate group trying to spread their terrorism and fundamentalist extremism throughout Wikipedia.  (For those of you apt to take my words out of context, that is not my opinion about WikiProject Islam, it was just an example.)  If you feel the need to block me, then just block me.  Empty threats will not change my behavior (but then again, neither would a block).  You can get a preview of what the community's reaction to a block would be by taking a look at the recent ANI thread started by User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz.  &mdash;SW&mdash; speak 15:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It does not appear that such a bias is coming from me, because I have no issue with atheists. I have issue with any belief being belittled on-wiki. If you were blocked, it would be for telling someone to "shut the hell up", and if Keepscases said the same thing, he, too, would be blocked. There is no bias. Keepscases has simply not told anyone to shut the hell up. Nor would such a characterization of WikiProject Islam be correct—they don't appear to showcase any userboxes stating, "This user believes that Western ideologies are a blight upon society and should be eliminated". So anyone who holds that opinion is perfectly entitled to it, but should not be making such statements here. I don't agree with Keepscases' labeling of WikiProject Atheism as a hate group, because calling WikiProjects "hate groups" is not collaborative. I don't understand why you don't seem to understand that this sort of behavior is detrimental to Wikipedia. We are not a free forum here and discussion on religious, political, fruit, etc. views should be kept to a minimum. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  16:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever. I'll let the recent additions to my userboxes speak for themselves.  Thanks to Keepscases for alerting me to their existence.  &mdash;SW&mdash; soliloquize 17:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey Keepscases. The "connection" is pretty tenuous at best. Had the candidate done or said anything hateful? No. Had the nominator done or said anything hateful? No. She has a userbox. Is the userbox in any way offensive? Not in my opinion. The userbox has a link to a project. Is the project offensive? No. Were there some userboxen on the project that could be seen as offensive... possibly. Now, you come across these userboxen and take offense? Do you A)Take them to MfD? B)Raise them as an issue on the project? C)Post a Neutral edit to an RfA, which will make no difference to the tally, and can only be to make a WP:POINT? I see no evidence that you tried A or B. I generally don't mind what you do on RfA, but I really do think you've crossed a line here.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 14:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keepscases, please see that the atheism project has removed the most offensive user-boxes, and is having a discussion now on an "official" pink-unicorn user-box. Their project page now has another statement welcoming both atheists and non-atheists, and noting that discussion of personal thoughts/beliefs is usually inappropriate. I hope that you will retract your statement, unless you can supply diffs that show hate-mongering associated with the projects's project work.
 * Scottywong has a misunderstanding of the community. IMHO of the discussants 1/3 supported a block on SW, 1/3 wanted also to block Keepscases, and 1/3 were against blocking and thought the topic a waste of time. Only 2 (SW and myself) supported his proposal to block me!
 * Again SW's coming to Keepscases talk-page, and telling him to "shut the hell up and stop your misguided religious blubbering" is another grounds for blocking SW, of course. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you doing adding all these headers to Keepcases talk page :S I'd suggest not doing that. --Errant (chat!) 18:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The length of the discussions suggested splitting up the topics. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 18:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI on latest personal attacks
The Administrators' NoticeBoard has a discussion on today's communications by Snottywong. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 18:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is now closed. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 22:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)