It wasn't clear for me also, this because I didn't see the thread with images of the keris mentioned.
So I think next time it would be better to place the images of the keris in the thread about the cleaning. Or at least put the link of the other thread in it.
I myself likes the patina on old pieces. Keris or no kerisses. And in my early collection days I did too excessive cleaning, and it was the biggest mistake of my life.
Nowadays when I have a very old piece in hands, but it looks like new because of excessive cleaning by others, all the fun and pleasure suddenly disappears, and even worst, I just dislike the piece because of the "new" appearance.
In fact it is worse. If I have a very old 19th century piece with a lot of patina, and there is a chip of wood somewhere broken which happened recently because of lack of care of former owners, and there is no old patina therefore on the breakoff, it would be hard to keep it in my own collection! But that is just my vision which I need my collectionpieces to meet...
I also don't like dirt on the piece. So the question is, how far are you going with cleaning? Before you know you go to far and some of the patina left.
So if you don't have much experience with it, I would keep it the way it is.
Personally I also think this will be an endless discussion which will come back again and again.
So what is the right thing to do? There are some who would "honour" the keris by treating it the way it was done in the early days. And I respect that fully.
But I am supporting Arjan's vision on this (not because he is Dutch, cause there are a lot of Dutch keris collectors who share your opinion of cleaning)..
Best wishes,
Maurice