User talk:Keepscases~enwiki/Archive 4

"Hate group"?
Atheists are no more a "hate group" than are Christians. In fact, if you look at lynchings, bombings, cross-burnings, beating people up, and such stuff as that... between atheists and Christians, which one is guilty of those activities? I do think of Atheism as religion-like in a number of ways. But calling them a "hate group" is ridiculous, unless you're willing to concede that all religions are inherently "hate groups". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, I hate groups myself. Crowds, line-ups, parades, you name it. Half  Shadow  20:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the issue, Bugs, is simply grouping everything under "religion" or "atheism". There will always be hateful people associating themselves with a particular religion, political party, or other organization. I would be hard-pressed to find someone who thinks that Westboro Baptist Church is not a "hate group". But does that make Christianity a bunch of hate groups (churches)? Absolutely not—there are so many independent groups calling themselves "Christian" that each should be judged on their own merits, not as one whole body. And even then, one would have to define "Christian", first, because I know many people who wouldn't call Fred Phelps a Christian at all. The same goes for atheism. I very much doubt that the members of WikiProject Atheism are actively inciting hate against organized religion, or that the members of WikiProject Christianity are doing the same to atheists. I also doubt that WikiProject Football is actively seeking to inflict harm against American businesspersons, despite the existence of a British organization devoted to such a task. Back to WikiProject Atheism—the existence of those inflammatory userboxes is quite unfortunate in that it has led to this division between users, and their creators may or may not be interested in engaging in hateful activity against organized religion, but one can hardly call a broad association of people with differing views a "hate group". / ƒETCH COMMS  /  00:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, I will not take back my "hate group" statements, as I question the judgement of any Wikipedian who would associate with a project that proudly displayed such nasty userboxes. That said, going forward, I will not fault any user with ties to WikiProject:Atheism, so long as those userboxes stay off their page (although I still have a problem with the "God-crossed-out" symbol).  I never even wanted to censor them.  I think they have the right to their opinions.  But I also think I have the right to judge them based on such. Keepscases (talk) 02:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you must acknowledge that all religions are "hate groups". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This has not been about religion nor atheism. This has been about WikiProject:Atheism. Keepscases (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How many editors have they lynched, tortured, burned, etc.? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It was a hate group by Wikipedia's own definition. Just because they were not as "accomplished" as the Ku Klux Klan does not make them innocent. Keepscases (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not seen any of the evidence. What kind of stuff were they doing? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Where exactly can I find "Wikipedia's definition" of a hate group, as referenced above? Are the consequences of establishing a hate group on Wikipedia well defined?  If so, what are they?  There must be one hell of a loophole in the "rules" allow organizations which fit Wikipedia's definition of a hate group to be allowed to remain as an active organization on Wikipedia.  I await your usual well-reasoned response with bated breath.  &mdash;SW&mdash; talk 05:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

(re Bugs' comment) Two things: a hate group promotes hate; they don't actually need to participate in violent activity. WBC is a hate group and they've not killed anyone yet. Also, as I mentioned above, "religion" or "atheism" is a broad, imprecise term. WikiProject Atheism, from Keepscases' point of view, has been promoting discord among users through the inclusion (previously) of divisive userboxes on its main page. By his interpretation of "hate group", that makes the WikiProject one. If your interpretation does not make the project a hate group, Bugs, then, well—it doesn't. No point in arguing about this because the whole point is that opinions are completely legitimate. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  05:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Not all opinions are. At least not here. Otherwise, any attack, no matter how severe or improper, could simply be called an opinion. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What are the top 3 most outrageous things that anyone in the atheist project has posted, which "promote hate"? I'm asking because I haven't seen it and don't know where to look for it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, so a hate group promotes hate. WikiProject Atheism's stated goal is "to better organize information in articles related to atheism" and "to improve all Atheism-related articles to Featured Article status, while still retaining a neutral point of view."  How exactly do these goals promote hate?  Oh, I forgot about the userbox with the word "God" crossed out.  Seeing as how atheism is defined as "the theory or belief that God does not exist", I can see how it is difficult to understand why such a group would create an icon with the word "God" crossed out.  I can see how that could be interpreted as the promotion of hate.  Indeed, all opinions certainly are completely legitimate, regardless of how little evidence there is to support them.  &mdash;SW&mdash; confabulate 05:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's cute how you proudly add hateful userboxes to your profile and then argue as if they don't exist. Keepscases (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't really want to get involved here, but Snottywong, can you not see the difference between believing something does not exist and being against something? Being atheist does not make you anti-religion, or anti-God, which is what is implied by the userboxen. Keepscases, I still think you are stretching things to imply these userboxes are "hateful".  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 12:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not "implying" it, I'm stating it. "Please keep your imaginary friends to yourself" has no place on Wikipedia. Keepscases (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:MfD is that-away. For the record, I'd support it's removal. But take Fetchcomms advice, and try to tone down the rhetoric.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 12:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Keepscases, you really haven't given a suffucient answer to the question we have asked. Why is WikiProject Athiesm A Hate group?. Why? T ofutwitch11 Alt  (T alk ) 15:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He's answered that already, scroll up. Just because you don't consider it sufficient doesn't mean he has to say it over and over. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  16:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He said that it fits "Wikipedia's definition" of a hate group, but never clarified where he found that definition. He also never clarified if Wikipedia defines any consequences for organizations which fit its definition of being a hate group, and how this WikiProject has managed to skirt those consequences.  I asked this very question above and predictably got no response.  &mdash;SW&mdash; confabulate 17:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Read what I wrote at the top of this discussion, right below your first religous-based personal attack, SW: I quoted WP's definition, without endorsing KS's mis-characterization. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, read and understood. But how does WikiProject Athiesm fall into that category at all? It doesn't -- it's no different that WikiProject Catholicism, Judaism, and any other religious wiki-project. This seems to be just a COI more than anything else. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 19:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We have alerted the WikiProject that some of their boxes don't send out the welcome wagon to theists, and some of its members have removed some of the boxes. I doubt that further discussion here can do much good. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 19:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not quite what I was looking for. When someone says "XYZ Group is a hate group by Wikipedia's definition", that makes me think that there is an established policy/guideline in the Wikipedia namespace (i.e. WP:HATEGROUPS) which defines what a hate group is, and what the consequences of forming such an organization within Wikipedia are.  I didn't think you meant that "XYZ Group is a hate group as defined by Wikipedia's article on hate groups".  The way that an article on Wikipedia defines a hate group has little to no bearing on the discussion.  Wikipedia policy is not defined in our articles.  My point is that if WikiProject Atheism is violating the spirit or the letter of any Wikipedia guidelines or policies, then it either needs to be disbanded completely or it needs to be forced to stop that behavior.  Same goes for any of the aforementioned userboxes.  Apart from that, if all wikiproject behavior and userbox wording falls within Wikipedia guidelines and policies, then you have no ground to stand on when you say you oppose someone's RfA based on something which is completely acceptable and unproblematic.  Thus why I suggested that Keepscases "shut up" earlier.  Either address the underlying problem (which has clearly been shown to be nonexistent), or keep your trap shut.  Fair warning: any further religion-based RfA votes by Keepscases (whether Support, Oppose, or Neutral) will result in an WP:RFC/U on his behavior.  &mdash;SW&mdash; soliloquize 20:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just about every Oppose vote ever cast at RfA concerns behavior that is "completely acceptable and unproblematic". You'd better plan on having a stronger case than that. Keepscases (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A pink unicorn is a "hate symbol"? Gimme a break. I could post an illustration of the Great Pumpkin, and you'd probably call that a "hate symbol" also. Keep in mind that many non-Christians have seen the cross as a "hate symbol". Oh, but that's different somehow, isn't it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There has been an RFC on his behavior at RFA..I'd gladly support another. A lot of what he contributes on RFA is not constructive nor relevant to the RFA at all. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 20:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone has explicitly said that a pink unicorn is inherently a hate symbol. That's not to say one couldn't use it as a hate symbol, just as someone could use a cross as a hate symbol or a swastika as a hate symbol. The word "Swastika" originally referred to "good luck charms" in Hinduism and related beliefs, but the Nazi movement has made it a hate symbol. Oh, and Tofutwitch11, I don't see how talking about someone in the third person on his or her user talk page is constructive at all. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  20:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The non-official user-boxes have been removed from the WikiProject Atheism, and in their place is a link to the WP page with various religious/atheism user-boxes. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Snake pit (game) AfD
Since you did not tag the page or create the nomination, I went ahead and removed the transclusion from the AfD list. If you would like to relist it, please follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Task force WP:RFA2011 update
Hi. As of 20 June: More stats have been added on candidates and !voter participation. Details have been added about qualifications required on other Wikis for candidates and RfA !voters. Some items such as clerking, !voters, and candidates are nearing proposal stage. A quick page`link template has been added to each page of the project. Please visit those links to get up to speed with recent developments, and chime in with your comments. Thanks for your participation.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 08:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC).

WP:RFA2011: RfA on other Wikipedias
A detailed table and notes have now been created and posted. It compares how RfA is carried out on   major Wikipedias (English, French, German, Italian, Spanish). If you feel  that other important language  Wikipedias should be added, please let  us know. This may however depend on  our/your language skills!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 22:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

Qwyrxian (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC from you
Please review the comment I appended here and consider commenting (by word or deed) at that location. Thanks, My76Strat (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi there
 Hello Keepscases, The Utahraptor has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hope everything is well. The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 14:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

RfA Reform update
Hi. It's been a little while since the last message on RfA reform, and there's been a fair amount of slow but steady progress. However, there is currently a flurry of activity due to some conversations on Jimbo's talk page.

I think we're very close to putting an idea or two forward before the community and there are at least two newer ones in the pipeline. So if you have a moment:
 * Have a look at the min requirement proposal and familiarise yourself with the statistics, I'd appreciate comment on where we should put the bar.
 * Any final comments would be appreciated on the clerks proposal.
 * Feedback on the two newer proposals - Pre-RfA & RfA reform 2011/Sysop on request. Both are more radical reforms of RfA and might run along side the current system.

Thanks for reading and for any comments that you've now made.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 21:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC).

RfA
Wise people resist the urge to turn RfA into  a dramafest. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I trust you posted this on the wrong user's wall? All I did was ask a question. Keepscases (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And then you go and oppose a candidate for not answering your stupid question? What is your goal here Keepscases? Why don't you find something constructive to do. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 19:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Having reviewed your recent contributions, I want to suggest quite strongly that you find something more useful to do than participating in RfA in the way you have recently done. I propose that if you continue you would be blocked, and we could then review your block at AN. If you wish to avoid this, please modify your behavior. Feel free to clarify this warning by posting here, but please do not continue to disrupt RfA. Thanks, --John (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to second this sentiment.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 19:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keepscases, I once considered you to be an incredibly clueful and downright net-positive Wikipedian. This is what shocked me when I went over your past history and see that the concerns raised above are quite correct. To be frank, your only purpose now seems to be to disrupt and cause drama in places that already have a triple helping of it. Your question had no more relevance to the candidate's RfA than it would have been to ask him if he preferred Coke over Pepsi. Trusilver 21:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I like your questions at RfA and think it's unfair that you are labelled a troll and a vandal. That said, you might get less grief if you spent some more time editing articles. Keep your chin up, Jenks24 (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Meh. Let him have his fun. The closing bureaucrat will give his !vote the weight that it deserves. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  21:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The more attention you give him, the more it encourages him. Imagine what would happen if, for 5 RfA's in a row, the RfA candidate ignored his question, and no one commented on his subsequent oppose.  &mdash;SW&mdash; babble 21:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Or what if, you know, the candidates just answered them, instead of everyone freaking out like I just killed their puppy? Many, many users have stated that they enjoy my questions at RfA and/or believe they are quite helpful in evaluating a candidate.  Keepscases (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely you realize that your questions are unusual, and I'm sure you can see how some users might consider them irrelevant. Opposing a candidate for refusing to answer one of your typical questions is disruptive.  You don't have to be told such things.  &mdash;SW&mdash; yak 22:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You clearly understand that your questions at RFA are (as mentioned above) irrelevant. Not everybody wishes to waste their time answering your questions. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 00:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Not everybody wishes to waste their time answering your questions. The proof of that statement  is that  in  the last  couple of hours we've had a flood of candidates withdrawing their nominations. Well done Keepscases, keep  up  the good work on  your favourite project. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Kudpung, would you please provide a diff showing this flood? (I am unaware of any such listing of proto-candidates, and I am surprised by your statement that many candidates won't participate to avoid Keepscases's questions/opposes.) Thanks, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 04:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Kudpung, but I am currently gently persuading a few candidates who would make great admins to brave the process. I haven't spoken to them yet, but this is exactly the sort of thing they were complaining about and I expect they will be unwilling to progress whilst this Keepscases matter is in the air. Assuming Kudpung is in the same position, (which I would, since he is also on WP:REQUESTNOM) I expect some of his "possibles" have changed their mind.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 04:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am dumbfounded. Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 04:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In order to  respect  users' privacy, we usually  scour  for admin  candidates by  email, and we are usually  contacted by  them by  email. There are no  diffs, and we're not  going  to  commit  a breach  of confidence.  Note that  these withdrawals are not  because of Keepscases alone, but  his antics, added to  the generally  flippant  environment  of RfA, have been the last  straw. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * September has had 4 successful RfAs (soon to be 5) and only one unsuccessful RfA. September's RfAs and Keepscases' questions have, or rather his latest question, have huffed & puffed and blown away exactly how many anonymous candidates? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we just take this whole issue to AN/I or make an RFC (again..). It's getting old sitting here fighting over it. If you're not going to do anything useful, then don't do it! T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 19:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy
I had decided once and for all  to  keep  out  of this from  now on, but  now that  you have added blatant  misinformation  to  RfA, I  most seriously  doubt  the good faith in  your participation  on  Wikipedia, and hope that  this time round something  will  be done about  it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It was wrong for you to coach the candidate behind the scenes. Keepscases (talk) 00:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's wrong of you  to  take things out  of context  and put  your own spin on it. Anyone can see that  post. If  you  are as highly  academically  qualified as your userboxes claim, you  will  see there is no point  in  trying  to  twist  my  words.  You, and some others, believe that  your contributions lend some kind of warped comic relief to  serious processes -  I  and lot of others don't.  If,  for example and pure hypothesis, you  were to  RTV  and start editing  under another account here, what  kind of work  would you  be doing? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not twisting anything. You told the candidate how to handle his own RfA, while it was going on, and that was wrong.  Why on Earth would I RTV?  Don't know what you're getting at there.  Keepscases (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keepscases has participated in RfAs for years, and the expressions of hostility recently expressed towards him seem similar to obsessive-compulsive behaviors---namely dysfunctional. Before writing another angry note about Keepscases, please consider an alternative behavior:
 * Ask oneself, "Am I over-reacting?". Is it really so bad? Has this happened before? Did the world come to an end? Have I ever over-reacted before, when I found myself being this upset? Did it help?
 * Make a list of positive responses to Keepscases questions ....
 * Make a list of wonderful things about Wikipedia---to get your mind out of obsessing .... Related techniques. Picture a stop sign and count to 20.
 * Make a cup of tea.
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz 15:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree whole-heartedly with Kiefer Wolfowitz. It's perhaps justifiable to feel annoyed by RfA, but for an administrator to suggest Keepscases' challenges can wreak such a devastating impact shows both a total sense of humour failure and a reliance on utterly unsubstantiated alarmism. To me, it indicates we need more people asking awkward questions before appointing admins. Exok (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Exok!
 * I would suggest that every RfA candidate be required to affirm having read some of our articles on social psychology, to understand how prone we all are to groupthink and scapegoating etc.
 * Young male chimpanzees instinctively form bands to raid neighboring territories and remove older males. This behavior has been filmed. Humans suffer from similar impulses, according to the first exhibit at  theStockholm's museum of military history ....) Compare Mario Savio (versus Hal Draper) on Clark Kerr, or Stokely Carmichael on Bayard Rustin ....
 * The project would function better if it refocused on writing an encyclopedia on traditional encyclopedia topics and adopted more of an apprentice/journeyman/master model of rights/responsibilities/powers.  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 09:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

RFA thankspam
Thank you for your comment at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Another RfA
Hello, Keepscases,

I am the beginner in Wikipedia, but would like to become an admin sometime, so your kind assistance would be very useful to me. I hope to count on your nomination as I reach the level of edits required by Wiki rules (soon, hopefully) - have only 1500+ edits so far in English Wiki. I will really appreciate your support when I reach the edit number necessary for adminship --Orekhova (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not trying to be crass, but you may have overlooked that Keepscases only has about 1700 edits currently. &mdash;SW&mdash; spill the beans 17:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But he's been at more RfA's than you, Snottywong! ;) Keepscases, good question at Requests for adminship/Slon02 4. What happened, someone brought you flowers and chocolates? 207.157.121.52 (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

My user page
You don't have the right to change grammar or anything on my User page. Don't do it again. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that last message. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are welcome! Keepscases (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Requests for comment/F&aelig;
A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:F&aelig;. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

RFA Thanks
Thanks for your support at my RfA, which was successful and nearly unanimous. Be among the first to see my L-plate! – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Figureskatingfan
Your Oppose here started a discussion about the candidate's username, which ended with my suggestion of "FSF Christine" as a middle ground option for her Sig. If that or another idea doesn't work, she's expressed a willingness to Change her username to User:Christine (which, amazingly, is available). When you get a chance, could you weigh in on the proposal? Since this came from your comment, I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

First time
First time I've ever seen a Finnegans Wake excerpt in an RfA. 28bytes (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Qui patitur vincit. Exok (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your support at my RfA. I will do my best to live up to people's confidence in me. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Another fine question...
at an RfA. I know some people don't like them, but I find they give a valuable insight into the candidate in a way statistics can't. Keep up the good work. Peridon (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Grammar and RfA
Your accounting for your neutrality doesn't strike me as informative or persuasive. Is there some bad history between you two?

Please pick a paragraph written in the RfA and parse the candidate's syntax and count the clichés. Please correct me if my sample (the age question) was unrepresentative, and the candidate does write well enough. Kiefer .Wolfowitz  21:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Conduct at RFA
Your last three edits to My76Strat's RFA contain unacceptable personal attacks. While I note that another administrator has already instructed you to "behave," consider this a final warning that continued personal attacks will not be tolerated, certainly not when you're using a third user's RFA as a platform from which to make them. If I'd seen these comments when you'd made them, I likely would have blocked you on the spot. As it is, I strongly recommend that you redact them. Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 14:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hej Hersfold!
 * The second diff shows a personal attack. The first diff shows a comparison, which is useful for benchmarking an RfA nominee, and should be allowed; I would agree that is is needlessly unpleasant and under-informative. The third diff is apparently a factual statement, which does not seem at all to be a personal attack or uncivil.
 * Please readact your mistaken complaints.
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz  16:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

July 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article BarlowGirl, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks
...For the offer of an RfB nom. I have to say no thanks. I'm way too over-committed in RL as it is. Anyway, my RfA experience was such that I doubt that I'd fare at all well... --Orlady (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Smile!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks"> Hello Keepscases, Acalamari has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Just dropping by. :) Acalamari 22:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

An invitation for you!
Happy editing! AutomaticStrikeout 21:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2) Your review is required and will be greatly appreciated :)
Hi Keepscases ! I have started my second editor review at Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2). I will be greatly delighted, thankful and valued to have your review for me regarding my editing and possible candidate for Adminship. I see you also evaluate possible candidates for Adminship as you had chosen to do so on Request an RfA nomination, so do evaluate me too! As you are a experienced and long term Wikipedian so i have asked for your kind review. Take your time to review my editing and give the best review that you can :). Feel free to ask me any questions you would like to on the review page itself. It will be a great honor to have you review me for which I will truly feel appreciated and helpful! I always work to improve Wikipedia and make it a more better place to be for Everyone :). Regards and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

October 2012
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for a long term pattern of trolling and incivility at RfA, culminating with your most recent comments such as , among others. Personal attacks like these are not tolerated anywhere, but they are even more serious in the highly sensitized environment that is RfA (and you're certainly aware of this, since the majority of your edits are to RfA, and you've been blocked for RfA disruption before). As most RfA regulars know, this behavior is not unprecedented for you, but it will no longer be tolerated. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. <span style="font:small-caps 1.3em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#772277;letter-spacing:0.2em;">-Scottywong <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#772277;">| prattle _ 01:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I accept this block graciously. My emotions got the best of me last night and I'm sorry. Keepscases (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess there's different ways to accept a block, yes. Keepscases, I was surprised when I saw some of those remarks (I didn't see all of them until just now). Too much vitriol. Sure, Kudpung is not the best-looking of admins (at a table at Wikimania with Kudpung, HJ Mitchell, Beeblebrox, SPhilbrick, and yours truly, it should be obvious who takes the cake), but he doesn't warrant that kind of language. I had another look at my own RfA (since I forgot what you did there) and I'm still not rightly sure I understand your opposition to the Lady's userbox, but that's water under the bridge, of course. I do think that you owe her an apology; you did kind of drag her through the mud. Anyway, I don't do many civility blocks, and civility issues are part of the rationale for this block. Good luck with any future unblock requests. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not appealing this block, nor do I plan on being blocked again. Keepscases (talk) 03:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Will you say something nice to the Lady? ;) Drmies (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If she wants to come here. I think this is the only place I can edit. Keepscases (talk) 03:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Too much South Park, perhaps? We should all learn gracious behavior from Mr. Slave. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  08:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Unblock
Keepscases, I have unblocked you for time served. Please see my note on Scottywong's talk page if you're interested in a general explanation. Let me add that I shortened it (quite considerably, and possibly too much according to other admins) because you expressed regret and I think it unlikely you will do this again. I would like to ask you a few things, but it's a question since I have no intention of mandating this: that you a. express your regret over your hasty comments to Kudpung; b. agree that conflicts and disagreements should be handled in a better way; c. at least try to refrain from commenting on Kudpung. I don't want to suggest that you single him out; I am not a good enough student of your edit history for that, but I do know that you two go back a bit. Finally, it seems obvious that you are controversial enough for other admins to keep an eye on you; I have little doubt that further unacceptable remarks will be met by a block. Please, no more allegations of ball-sucking. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)