Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Keltik31

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "Uppity" comment

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: P.S. Admittedly, it was a rather trollish response! AnnH ♫ 01:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for that clarification; I've removed it from the evidence. -- weirdoactor t|c -- 01:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please do not delete the comments of others on talk or project pages 

message: 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)
replies: text: I looked at that RfC also.  It's quite different.  Consider: (a), (b), and (c). OBriain 22:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Similar RFC page you may want to sign

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Seriously. He has again stated that Jews are responsible for the United States being attacked on 911 and in response to another editor who disagreed with his POV edits he replied and what a suprise that you are jewish Bill.. This RfC has not altered his behavior one bit. IrishGuy talk 21:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  The vandalism from 84.169.183.1, and Keltik's reaction 

message: Keltik31 hasn't been terribly active of late; only one article edit in the last two weeks. Granted, it wasn't what one might call "non-combative"; but I convinced him to discuss his change on the article's talk page after it was (correctly, I believe) reverted. He's discussing changes now, and not just making them. Could his "discussion technique" be called trolling? Sure. Baby steps. Civility still seems to be a problem for him, though compared to his past blatant, angry responses, this could be seen as an improvement. Then, you have comments like this. Well, again...at least he didn't say that in an article.
Do I believe Keltik31 is going to clean up his act, and become a more civil, less POV pushing editor. No. I honestly believe it's just a matter of time before he commits some major breach of policy and is permanently banned. I don't believe any amount of counseling, short-term bans, or other methods are going to show him the error of his ways. I hope I'm wrong. Comments like this don't give me much hope. -- weirdoactor t|c 17:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. This RfC hasn't been terribly active of late either. I think you hit the nail on the head about Keltik31's likely eventual Wiki-fate. What do people think about archiving the RfC?--Ginkgo100 talk 19:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Call for archive seconded, and a link to the archive placed on his talk page. -- weirdoactor t|c 15:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are we with this RFC?