Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Keltik31


 * The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.  

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 21:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Statement of the dispute
This user has been accused of disruptive behavior including uncivil statements, personal attacks, threats, and violations of neutral point of view. 21:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Description
User repeatedly makes only racist and anti-Semetic contributions. Pushes POV with nearly every edit. User is also incivil and has impersonated an administrator. --Db099221 21:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior

 * [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Keltik31&diff=prev&oldid=84109731 "you sound like the typical

wiki pinhead"] part of a long rant
 * "you're also a liberal" user page vandalism
 * "you are crazy if you think it happened" 'it' being the holocaust
 * "stay in chicago" uncivil remark
 * "wierdo guy" personal attack
 * "put the crack pipe down" another personal attack
 * "He was being an uppity nigger and needed an attitude adjustment" copied this onto talk page
 * Added 'National Association for the Advancement of Colored People' to list of allegedly racist groups without discussion
 * Added 'One of the worst displays of violence was a gauntlet run by black and hispanic rioters' again without discussion
 * "the state of Israel is a terrorist nation and Ariel Sharon is a terrorist" off topic posting at 9/11 talk page
 * Added "israel is a terrorist state and does it's evil deeds with the consent and taxpaer dollars of american citizens who are kept in the dark as to the facts by the zionist-controlled media....the Wikitards" Israel is a terrorist state/Personal attacks on Wikipedians
 * Changed "militant" to "citizen soldier" POV pushing

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * WP:Civility
 * WP:No personal attacks
 * WP:Neutral point of view
 * WP:Consensus
 * WP:Verifiability

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

 * User alleges Wikipedia's "gutless liberalism"
 * User denies making personal attacks
 * User alleges, "Free thought is discouraged here anyway."

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

 * --Db099221 21:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The real issues are personal attacks and blatant WP:V issues. If the user would be civil, not insult other editors and sourced his additions we wouldn't have nearly as serious issue with the POV. JoshuaZ 21:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have warned this user for disruptive, POV-pushing, and uncivil behavior (examples   ). Since then, despite a block by another admin for personal attacks, it appears that disruptive behavior has continued (examples    and especially this threat). --Ginkgo 100  talk 21:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My first interaction with the user was here; involving his disputing the numbers of dead in The Holocaust. After that exchange, I took a look at the user's contributions. I hate to think the worst of someone; but there was something dark about the user's edits/contributions, when looked at not just individually, but as a whole, as a pattern. Not just the blatant POV pushing (e.g., here, here and here) but a deliberate, focused effort to remove the "Jewishness" from certain articles (as the user does  here and here) while at the same time injecting negative (as well as factually inaccurate) POVs into other articles (e.g., here and here). In addition, the user does not seem to understand the purpose of article talk pages; using them as off-topic discussion threads and trolling ponds. I would like the user to become a responsible editor who follows policy and does not need to be watched; but unfortunately, I don't see that happening. The resources required to correct the user's edits and police their behavior are more than should have to be expended by other editors and admins. There is little or no good faith in this user's edits and contributions; sadly, just the opposite. The user appears to be a textbook boundary-pushing troll. - -  weirdo actor  tundefinedc - - 02:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * He first came to my attention when he asked what appeared to be legitimate questions about Catholicism . I attempted to answer his questions. It became increasingly clear that he wasn't interested in asking questions but instead was stirring the pot: just wondering where catholics get some of their practices from. if it isnt in the bible, then it isnt legit in my book. you just cant make it up as you go. As it became clearer that he was simply trying to stir things up and wasn't actually interested in learning more about Catholicism I still gave him information but pointed out that this may be an instance of trolling on his part. His response was i suggest you kiss the sunny side of my royal irish ass. trolling? is that a personal attack?.  At that point, I warned him about civility. His response: is this a lecture, because i dont remember signing up for the class.  When it was pointed out by another editor that talk pages really aren't the place for such a discussion his response was: i think i'll do what i want to do and wait for irish guy's response. thanks for your input though  IrishGuy talk  22:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * This user edited the article Gas chamber to state that there were no autopsy results showing that anyone had been gassed during the Holocaust . I reverted that as a POV edit. He then asked on Talk:Gas chamber for autopsy results . In response to what could have been a good faith request for citations, I found and added references to the section on Nazi gas chambers - not autopsy results, of course, as those are somewhat hard to find for Holocaust victims, but other sources that were reputable and verifiable. A couple of weeks later, he returned to the talk page and again asked for autopsy results . This led to a discussion where the existing references - Nuremberg testimony, the Gerstein Report, everything any reputable historian has ever written about the Holocaust - were explained. He rejected these references  and suggested other ones that supported his point of view, including an obvious Holocaust denial website and the thorougly debunked pamphlet Did Six Million Really Die. I suggested that if he really disagreed with the article and its references, he could edit it himself if he could find valid and reputable sources . He never took me up on that suggestion, but returned to the talk page to once again post questions casting doubt on the facts of the Holocaust . This editor seems to either not understand or not care about verifiability and the use of reputable sources. He also seems to prefer spending time posting and reposting talk page questions that border on trolling to actually making substantive edits to articles. Eron 22:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Addhoc 17:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * TheQuandry 00:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Seems pretty clear to me.
 * G Rose 13:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC) User is biased and uncivil. Looking over his Rodney King article edits, I notice that he removed several cited statements as well as inserting his own (uncited) POV statements. As he seems to have denied every accusation of POV made against him, it appears likely that he'll continue to compromise the validity of articles until he is stopped.
 * Daniel J. Leivick 01:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC) This user has trouble relating to others and is quick to anger (possibly a troll) also blatant pusher of POV.

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' ''

i reject the terms anti-semetic and racist as i am neither. becuase i provoke what i feel are inteligent discussions? because i question the "official" version of history. because i rasie thought provoking questions? i think that there is a hypersensitivity here and that there are too many people with too much time on their hands. that is my opinion. i think that the holocaust was exadgerated and that the naacp is a racist organization. i am not alone. but i am not a nazi or a klansman because of it and i resent the implication.

if you want to ban me? then ban me. Keltik31 20:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

what have i said that is racist or anti-semetic? you can lobb that accusation, but back it up. i consider that a personal attack. Keltik31 20:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

i didnt say that they werent terrorists. get your facts straight my friend. where do i say "the 9/11 hijackers were not terrorists"? am i missing something? is there something in the water i drink that makes me so far off the same page as people who make stupid claims like this? Keltik31 21:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

this is another fabrication of the truth. i have made edits and asked questions of other issues. this sounds more to me like a Wikipedia Witch Hunt than a real inquiry. Keltik31 21:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

i was not trying to stir the pot, i was just trying to understand why the faith does some of the things it does. i found you to be the one being confrontational. Keltik31 23:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

(note: this edit is restored from here, re: Eron's comment here - -  weirdo actor  tundefinedc - - ) well? are there any autopsy results proving it? afraid of the truth? Keltik31 20:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

 * 1) Keltik31 has a little bit of a bombastic style which he could certainly work to clean up. 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. 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. 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. 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.  The edits in question would be better qualified as unsourced, because they are just that, unsourced statements about Israeli PMs Begin and Sharon, and there truly are very well known sources and institutions that deem or have deemed them terrorists.  In related statements of his- anti-Israel sentiments, and those drawing attention to U.S.-Israel relations, again, I find unsourced statements and a lack of effort in seeking consensus by all parties. In summary, Keltik31 shows only the aforementioned [|"uppity" comment] as a violation of WP:Civility and WP:NPOV.  That calls for a warning on Keltik31's talk page. Colloquial expressions (e.g., "put the crack pipe down") are not any sort of violation when part of talk pages. I should be clear that I do not sympathize with Keltik31's particular views on these issues, but I do affirm his non-violation of policies summary as detailed within my above response. OBriain 19:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Outside views
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Summary 1
Just a quick view of the this person's editing history and talk page shows that he is using Wikipedia to promote a blatant racist and anti-semetic political agenda, and is not prepared to interact with other editors in a civil and productive manner. This editor should probably be blocked from contributing to Wikipedia. Spylab 02:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

 * 1) Spylab 00:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Summary 2
I think that one edit completely destroys Keltik31's defense that he is not a racist, "He was being an uppity nigger and needed an attitude adjustment". This is completely unacceptable, after this kind of edit every action from this user is suspect.Daniel J. Leivick 01:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * ***** this was an edit that i removed. i did not write it. i removed it ****** Keltik31 22:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It was not removed as normal vandalism should be it was moved to the talk page. Completely inappropriate, either a completely misguided revert or outright racism. We can assume good faith but given this users time on Wikipedia and other edits it is difficult. Daniel J. Leivick 01:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

the "upity nigger" comment was put on the article page by someone else. i moved it to the discussion page and commented that i had to remove it. i dont use that word to describe people, not even thugs like rodney king. Keltik31 15:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * While this probably could have been better phrased on the talk page, it does appear to be true that this user removed an edit to Rodney King with the "uppity n*****" quote, not added it. While I can't speak to the user's other edits, (s)he should not be reprimanded for that. I would advise, however, that in future discussion on the talk page, I would advise the user use a subject heading such as "Removed an edit containing a racial slur" rather than to repeat the slur there. Seraphimblade 08:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

 * 1) Daniel J. Leivick 01:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Summary 3
Keltik31 appears harmless. Many of his edits are very opinionated and possibly offensive to a selected some. If this user were to bring citation, there would not be an issue. Summary 2 states: "after this kind of edit every action from this user is suspect." Every edit form every user should be suspect, not because you didn't like him using the word nigger. Many edits are POVs and to write for Wikipedia, he would need to alter his writing style; if he cannot, he is recommended to express his opinions anywhere that is not Wikipedia. Just be cautious not to get shot by people who disagree with you. Freedom of speech is not a real thing.

Users who endorse this summary:

 * 1) Goodlief 06:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Closing comments
Keltik31 was indefblocked on 10 November 2007 by Addhoc. --Muchness (talk) 12:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.