Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Keltik31

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] "Uppity" comment

Keltik31 removed vandalism consisting of the comment "He was being an uppity... (etc. etc.)" from Rodney King. He restored that comment on the talk page and used it in his edit summary to declare he had removed it. Taken by itself, and striving to assume good faith, it could be that he merely handled a vandalism reversion poorly. At best, however, it shows very bad judgment. Keltik, I am hoping you understand why there was an objection to your action here. --Ginkgo100 talk 01:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

no i am not understanding. it was a racist slurr and i removed it. the other edits to the rodney king article are valid. read stacey koons book. Keltik31 18:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You removed it from the article, posted it on the article's talk page, and used it in your edit summary. Would you like to explain why? Most other editors simply delete vandalism on sight without feeling the need to copy it somewhere else. - Eron Talk 18:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

i just felt a need to explain seeing that i get jumped on for everything else i do. Keltik31 19:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not delete the comments of others on talk or project pages

Keltik31, vandalizing your RfC page might send the wrong signal as to your willingness to be a productive wikieditor...please don't remove the comments of others from talk or project pages. Thanks. -- weirdoactor t|c -- 21:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't vandalism. He just inserted the words "well? are there any autopsy results proving it? afraid of the truth?" as part of his counterargument against his accusers. It messed up the formatting, but that often happens, even with respected, long-standing editors. Nothing was deleted; it was just pushed into the next section. AnnH ♫ 01:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Admittedly, it was a rather trollish response! AnnH ♫ 01:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for that clarification; I've removed it from the evidence. -- weirdoactor t|c -- 01:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where to go from here

At this point it seems appropriate to discuss where to go from here. I'll ask User:Keltik31 first; what do you think should happen now? --Ginkgo100 talk 21:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the behavior that began this whole thing has continued [1] I think it is safe to assume that Keltik31 has no real desire to have a constructive dialogue about these complaints. IrishGuy talk 22:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Ditto here and here. -- weirdoactor t|c -- 22:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The second example there is a perfectly good and reasonable edit, and was explained on the talk page. The article claimed that Spencer Tracy was in a relationship with Katharine Hepburn, but was a devout Roman Catholic and did not divorce his wife. Keltik31 pointed out on the talk page that it's illogical to say that a married man was a relationship with another woman and was a devout Catholic. He simply removed the word "devout". That was perfectly reasonable, and it should not have been reverted with popups, which are meant to be reserved for vandalism. Some of Keltik's behaviour has certainly been trollish, and I have even warned him about it, but when people start reverting good-faith edits as vandalism, and reporting them as evidence against him, it makes the whole RfC look suspect. AnnH ♫ 00:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The reason I reverted it was that I found it to be a biased charge. Is he removing every reference to anyone of any faith who may have fallen short? No. He has made it very clear that he is biased against Catholics. Beyond that, if "devout" is completely defined by flawlessly following the tenets of faith...who would be devout? People are human and humans make mistakes. Granted, he was being unfaithful to his wife, but he did it openly so. His wife knew. Beyond that, he was faithful in going to mass and observed other rules of his faith. IrishGuy talk 01:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
And let's not forget engaging in the behaviour that led to an RfC, on the RfC page itself. Some people, you just can't reach. - Eron Talk 22:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
We could just go to ANI and request community consensus for a ban. Are we up to that point? JoshuaZ 22:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
That is definitely a big step, but one that may not be unwarrented. The user has refused to alter his actions at all and until he recognizes how divisive his words and actions are, I don't think anything will change. IrishGuy talk 23:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree this edit is clearly disruptive, so we should request a community ban. Addhoc 23:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Unfortunately, he's beyond saving. -- weirdoactor t|c -- 23:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be appropriate to give Keltik31 a reasonable amount of time to respond here before deciding to go to ANI. I'll arbitrarily define "reasonable" as 24 hours from now. --Ginkgo100 talk 01:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
His behaviour is certainly blockable, but the trolling edits are mixed with good-faith edits, and I'm concerned that this RfC hasn't really taken that into account. Also, he has been accused of vandalizing his RfC with this edit. That wasn't vandalism. Anyone who looks carefully will see that it was simply inserting an argumentative comment into the middle of an accusation made against him. It happened to mess up the formatting, but even experienced users sometimes mess up the formatting when they insert a comment into the middle of numbered votes. Keltik, would you be prepared to stop making all these confrontational arguments on talk pages, and simply try to edit articles constructively and put this behind you? AnnH ♫ 01:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Ann; I've removed that link from the evidence. Insofar as the user's good-faith edits; from my look at their contribs, there seem to be so few in comparison with the bad-faith edits and trolling as to almost seem...accidental. -- weirdoactor t|c -- 01:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't consider that particular edit to be vandalizing the RfC. However, I think it is clear evidence that he is continuing to engage in the behaviour that brought about this RfC in the first place. - Eron Talk 04:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree it was more 'disruptive' than 'vandalism'. Also, I don't object to giving him longer than 24 hours - this RfC hasn't been open very long and more editors are commenting. Addhoc 12:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

In light of others' comments and this recent edit, I am willing to concede that the user has no apparent interest in behaving in a more appropriate fashion. He has certainly exhausted my patience. Would anyone object to my indef-blocking him? --Ginkgo100 talk 04:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you block him? I would object to such a block as I don't believe he's committed anything more than one violation jointly of WP:Civility and WP:NPOV. The rest is unsourced material and certainly frustration with being repeatedly reverted without consensus-seeking efforts and the target of personal attacks, at least insofar as the evidence submitted presents. Please also refer to my endorsement on the RfC page itself. OBriain 20:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Impersonating an admin [2], telling me to "kiss his ass" [3], as well as the various other instances [4] [5]...none of these seem like breaches of WP:CIV and/or WP:ATTACK to you? IrishGuy talk 20:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Irishguy :) cen chaoi bhfuil tu? Re: this mess, two of your citations are indeed violations of WP:Civility ([6] and [7]) and the former may be judged to be in violation of WP:NPA. The remaining citation is demonstrably neither. These cases are not presented in the RfC and they should be. That notwithstanding, with the exception of the one comment on the Rodney King talk page, I haven't seen any smoking gun in this case. I think Keltik31's got a poor attitude and doesn't appear to be skilled at citing his sources, but I don't think banning him makes sense, especially because no one seems to have worked towards a consensus with him. He had his work repeatedly reverted and rather than discussion, he was slammed with cries of anti-Semitism and racism and prodded as though it were his first few days of editing. I just don't see a clear-cut case. OBriain 21:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, yes the other citation is an admin impersonation. I would have laughed, though, were it directed at me. Just look at it... I don't intend this to discredit your argument, and you are quite right that is is an admin impersonation, but it's just so laughable to read. OBriain 21:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm good, thanks for asking :) I actually did raise these in the RFA number 5 and Keltik's response was that he felt I was the one being confrontational. I, obviously, disagree and I think a reading of the conversation will illustrate that point. I find his impersonation of an admin somewhat laughable, too, but having been around here long enough I knew it was bluster. A newer user might not, in my opinion, so even the most transparent of admin impersonations shouldn't go unnoted. My personal reasons for supporting a ban is that I really don't see him making any constructive edits...certainly not on the talk pages which appear to be blatant trolling. IrishGuy talk 21:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keltik31 has a little bit of a bombastic style which he could certainly work to clean up.
If by "bombastic style" you mean "believes every piece of propaganda he reads, and attempts to pollute Wikipedia with POV commentary"; then yes...he does.
The only point of evidence that should stand against him is the ["uppity n*****" comment] as it is definitely in violation of WP:Civility and WP:NPOV.
I find it interesting that:
I don't know Keltik31's IP, so I can't confirm that they did this, but I do think it's an interesting coincidence, nonetheless.
It is not, however, directed at any person other than the subject of the article so that instance does not qualify as a violation of WP:NPA.
So, if someone commented on every article about Ireland that all persons of Irish descent are obviously nothing but terrorists, solely due to the existence of the IRA, you would be okay with that? I wouldn't. Using POV commentary to insult the subject of an article is a clear violation of policy, and pretty much this user's sole purpose for being a Wikipedia editor, save his occasional trolling expeditions.
The other evidence against Keltik31 can be viewed as a difference of opinion for which there has been no good faith effort by other parties to seek consensus, therefore Keltik31 can not be in violation of WP:Consensus. Rather, his edits were summarily rejected.
All of the evidence can be view thusly? Please elaborate.
The allegations of anti-Semitism, which, if demonstrably true, would be a heinous violation of WP:NPOV, actually revealed to me a disturbing trend towards NPA directed against Keltik31 by other editors whose correct course of action should have been citation needed or fact tags on the content in question or changing the content with attention to NPOV and consensus.
So, we should apologize for name-calling, and mark edits like this with a {{fact}} tag? We should just assume good faith in the case of edits like that, with no regard to the obvious POV/troll pattern?
That calls for a warning on Keltik31's talk page.
He's been warned on numerous occasions; and even blocked, but came back strong from that with the exact same behaviors.
Colloquial expressions (e.g., "put the crack pipe down") are not any sort of violation when part of talk pages.
I had to read that three times to realize that you weren't joking...you're actually serious. Wow. I don't know quite where to begin in response to that. -- weirdoactor t|c -- 21:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment This will be the last opportunity I have to respond in this discussion, not because I don't value either :your points and issues or my own, but because I'm not a constant presence on Wikipedia and I really haven't time for more beyond one response. If, afterwards, you feel I've not addressed a key point, you have my apologies. Now, in response to your points:
1 If by "bombastic style" you mean "believes every piece of propaganda he reads, and attempts to pollute Wikipedia with POV commentary"; then yes...he does. He has a bombastic style in how he addresses other editors and responds to criticism, but nothing completely through the roof as far as I've seen (except in the cases that I've already agreed to be policy violations). Your very comment here, however, is what I'm concerned with - if he has a reputable source (and you and I both know there are sources for nearly any information including claims against Rodney King, Begin, Sharon, Israel, etc., that would be completely unimpeachable with the tools available to us on Wikipedia), he should be encouraged to verify his statements. The very fact that there is so much unimpeachable material out there is the reason consensus is so important. Reverting and attaching slanderous appellations like racist and anti-Semite push his work and his potential sources out of the consensus. I object to that even if the material is unpopular or sentimentally offensive.
2 So, if someone commented on every article about Ireland that all persons of Irish descent... No, it's not a personal attack because it isn't directed at some affected party (hence it's not personal), it's addressed to the subject of an article. It's morally reprehensible language, rightly censored, but it is no more a personal attack than you directing that argument against me. It's in the ballpark because you're aware that I'm Irish, but it's not the same thing as bona fide personal attacks.
3 Please elaborate. Sure thing. Has anyone attempted to seek consensus with Keltik31 in relation to the edits that you have consistently painted as non-NPOV content? All articles on topics that would spawn such controversy have room for improvement, room for a show of common criticisms, etc., and as such, criticisms even as unusual as Keltik31's cannot be reasonably rejected without consensus-seeking efforts. Who wouldn't be frustrated and disillusioned if their minority opinion was thrown out again and again and again without comment simply because it's deemed "wrong" by the traditional POV?
4 So, we should apologize for name-calling, and mark edits... That's correct, you should not be calling anyone an anti-Semite or a racist. Particularly if you are going to bring up an RfC that includes WP:NPA and WP:Civility clauses even if an editors actions or words clearly fit such descriptions. There's just no reasonable excuse for those sorts of accusations in an environment like this in which you can neither know nor understand the workings of the people with whom you're communicating. As for the edits, of course not, but there's no effort to have Keltik31 develop his information in a more appropriate section about criticisms or negative aspects of articles' subjects.
5 He's been warned on numerous occasions; and even blocked. And those, along with reverts, are the only way he's had his efforts addressed.
6 Wow. I don't know quite where to begin in response to that. You could begin with similar colloquial expressions, however less hyperbolic, like get off your high horse. OBriain 22:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
...ah, sorry about that there guys, I tried for contrast, instead it just looks like a whole lot
of bold. OBriain 22:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
No worries; it's readable. "Get off your high horse" and "put the crack pipe down" are (in tone) more like that of a parent speaking to a child, and not that of a civil Wikipedia editor seeking to speak as equals with another civil Wikipedia editor about an issue, heated or otherwise; on any talk page, be it for an article or a user. It's as simple as this; one must show respect to gain respect. Have I and others always shown Keltik respect? No. I myself at first was uncivil to him; I was pretty new myself at the time. But many have made strong attempts to reach him, with respect, humor, cajoling...and all such attempts have met with failure. It saddens me; because Keltik undoubtedly has a curious and inquisitive intellect, but is unable to a) see the views of others that he disagrees with, and b) disagree with others within the policy of Wikipedia. -- weirdoactor t|c -- 23:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This is one recent attempt to work toward a consensus with him; there are others, but I'd need to search for them, or you can, in the user's contributions. Sadly, at some point one must stop trying to teach the pig to dance. -- weirdoactor t|c -- 21:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The other evidence against Keltik31 can be viewed as a difference of opinion for which there has been no good faith effort by other parties to seek consensus. I'd ask you to review again the diffs I presented regarding my interactions with Keltik31 at Talk:Gas chamber. I may have been a bit short, but I responded to his request for sources with references that met Wikipedia standards for verifiability. He basically dismissed them and returned to his original requests in what gives every appearance of being simple trolling. I'm still fairly new here, so if I failed to show good faith or seek consensus in my dealings with this user, I would genuinely appreciate knowing how so I can avoid that in future. - Eron Talk 21:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I just read through your conversation. In my opinion, you gave him ample time. More time than I might have. You repeatedly told him that talk pages were about the article, not outside discussion...he repeatedly ignored that and prodded more. You answered every question he posed, he ignored it and prodded more. Frankly, I think you did a very admirable job by not overtly losing your cool. But that is all just my opinion. IrishGuy talk 22:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Ditto. I just examined the Talk:Gas chamber page again. I had initially dismissed its content as more of the same peevish name-calling when I read the line about "Nazi trolls" at the top. Instead, you, Eron had an authentically consensus-seeking, civil discussion with Keltik31. Your conduct was admirable. Of note, also, is that Keltik31's conduct wasn't vitriolic. This leads me to return to the notion that, by and large, as he has been repeatedly ejected from discussions, with authentic efforts to work with him (something to which he is entitled) he may be a worthwhile presence. He just needs to work to find verifiable sources instead of having POV issue arguments in the talk pages. OBriain 23:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I would support an indef block. Addhoc 12:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The user doesn't seem to acknowledge that there could be a problem with his conduct. I am not sure that there is anything else that can be done. - Eron Talk 16:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
In light of the above comments, however, it is clear there is no consensus for a community ban. I have invited User:Keltik31 to join this discussion, from which he has been conspicuously absent as late. --Ginkgo100 talk 22:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
i couldnt care less. ban me if you want. i will continue to read articles in wik. no problem if i cant edit. i dont really care at this point. free thought is discouraged here anyway. Keltik31 22:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's a community effort. Things are accomplished through a deliberative process and, as you may read from my comments and those of a few others above, not everyone believes your "thought" should be discouraged. However, you must be aware at this point that this is not a compendium of blogs and message boards, but, essentially, an open-source encyclopedia. As such, in order for it to be worth reading to you or to anybody else, anything in it must be verifiable - appropriate source material must be cited. If you find statements out there that you have come to believe are wrong, add {{citationneeded}} or {{fact}} tags so that other editors can either find good sources or cause it to be rejected as unsourceable or non-NPOV content. Similarly, when you add something controversial, be sure to cite your sources. Those are the greatest troubles you've had to contend with here. OBriain 23:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I would fully support an indefinite block. I have yet to see more than a handful (if that) of constructive edits from Keltik31. He doesn't acknowledge he has a problem, instead accusing Wikipedia of "gutless liberalism" and being uncivil toward other users. Anyone can see a pattern of racism and POV-pushing from Keltik31. --Db099221 01:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Similar RFC page you may want to sign

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mitsos is another RFC page about a very similar situation. Please take a look and sign it if you approve of it. Spylab 16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I looked at that RfC also. It's quite different. Consider: (a), (b), and (c). OBriain 22:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The vandalism from 84.169.183.1, and Keltik's reaction

An admin with checkuser access has confirmed that 84.169.183.1 and Keltik31 are unrelated. If there had been credible evidence that Keltik was logging out to vandalize anonymously, and then logging on to revert it in his own name, I would have blocked him indefinitely without further ado. Please note that he reverted that edit, which he's unlikely to have done if he had approved of it. Yes, it was incredibly insensitive and tactless, and perhaps even confrontational, to put that in the edit summary and in the heading on the talk page. But it was nothing more. It's quite obvious that Keltik does not know how to commmunicate with other users properly. But let's not forget that the real culprit was 84.169.183.1. I think we should acknowledge that as far as that particular complaint goes, Keltik did not call anyone an "uppity nigger". He reverted vandalism in a very insensitive way. Perhaps it would have been better simply to tell him (once) that putting it in the talk page with the sentence in the edit summary and the heading was likely to increase inflammation, rather than sending him repeated warning templates and scoldings. Who knows — he might have learned something from it. AnnH ♫ 16:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ann, I can appreciate the desire to reclaim a vandal and make them into a good contributor. But even during an RfC, the behavior discussed in the RfC continues, unabated. He's been warned, bargained with, begged, pleaded with; and he just does not want to change. -- weirdoactor t|c -- 21:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Seriously. He has again stated that Jews are responsible for the United States being attacked on 911[8] and in response to another editor who disagreed with his POV edits he replied and what a suprise that you are jewish Bill.[9]. This RfC has not altered his behavior one bit. IrishGuy talk 21:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe Keltik31 that he did not intend any ill will in this controversial reversion. I am troubled only by the fact that he seems unconcerned about the tactlessness of how he handled it. That, however, is not a very big deal in the scheme of things. --Ginkgo100 talk 21:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_comment_Keltik31_c0bd.html"