Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Keltik31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Keltik31}}
to the checkuser page here. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (but will still appear here).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

Keltik31[edit]

  • Code letter: C.

I am not sure if Code letter C quite matches this case, but it was the closest match of the available codes. I'll understand if this request is rejected.

Keltik31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been disruptive, clogging up talk pages with argumentative, off-topic posts. In my view, his behaviour does not yet warrant an indefinite block, but he is the sort of user who might eventually get community baned. He continues, despite warnings. See for example here. There is currently an RfC concerning his behaviour. The general feeling there is that we should go to WP:AN/I and ask for a community ban. I'm not in favour at the moment, as his behaviour does not match the kind of behaviour that indef blocks are normally given for — but I could change my mind.

One of the issues at stake concerns the line "He was being an uppity nigger and needed an attitude adjustment.". That was added to the Rodney King article by User:84.169.183.1 at 14:32 (UTC) on 28 November.[1] The next edit, at 20:50 on the same day, was from Keltik31, removing the offensive sentence.[2] That was fine, but he then went to the talk page and put that line in the edit summary and the heading (no quotation marks), and wrote underneath the heading "I had to take that out."[3] He was given several warnings for writing that sentence, both on his talk page and at the RfC, and he protested that he had taken it out of the article, and had just quoted it on the talk page, in which case it would just have been an incredibly badly-worded edit summary — perhaps even intentionally confrontational, but perhaps not.

It has been suggested on the RfC talk page that there could be a link between the anonymous vandal and Keltik31.

I won't give a lengthy list of his behaviour problems — it's all at the RfC. He has definitely been disruptive, but he has also been hassled a bit at his own talk page (repeated template warnings coming one after the other, with no "new" offence taking place in between), has been falsely accused of vandalism when he simply inadvertently messed the format of the numbering for his RfC, and has had at least one perfectly legitimate edit reverted as vandalism with popups. If he has been logging off to vandalize, and then reverting in his own name, I'll just block him indefinitely, to stop any further trouble. Thank you. AnnH ♫ 02:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red X Unrelated. There is no evidence of that user on that IP. Essjay (Talk) 07:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Keltik31&oldid=1138657434"