Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Keetoowah

Case Opened on 19:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 01:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

 * (initiator)

Keetoowah is aggressively incivil towards other users including, but not limited to, the making of personal attacks.

Notification of this entry at User talk:Keetoowah.
 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Requests_for_comment/Keetoowah raised 15 February 2005 asserted that Keetoowah "makes violent personal attacks on other users." It received four direct endorsements in addition to the two editors certifying the dispute. Four other editors endorsed a harsher summary describing Keetoowah as "an obnoxious user". Keetoowah's response opened "Forget it. This is a Star Chamber. I'm not even going to participate. Waste of time." TheoClarke did not participate in this RFC.

Statement by TheoClarke
TheoClarke believed Keetoowah to be pushing a POV at Ward Churchill and challenged this at Talk:Ward Churchill. Keetoowah responded with aggressive incivility. TheoClarke suggested that this was inappropriate. Keetoowah responded with more aggressive incivility including a suggestion that any UK national is unqualified to contribute to the Ward Churchill article. Keetoowah has displayed similar behaviour patterns towards other editors and shows no sign of ameliorating such behaviour. Given that these diffs may not be in full context, I feel that the best evidence would be a reading of Talk:Ward Churchill and its archives.

Addendum at 23:31, August 12, 2005 (UTC): Contrary to Raul654's perception that this is "a one time incident", it is part of a pattern of increasing aggression against more than six editors since Keetoowah's sixth edit in which he makes an argumentative response to a covert attack on Condoleezza Rice. Since this mild incivility, Keetoowah became increasingly aggressive at Talk:Condoleezza Rice and has also attacked Slimvirgin, Cberlet, Viajero, Fred Bauder, and zen master at Talk:Ward Churchill. The details of all these attacks were omitted from the first draft of this statement for brevity. For the avoidance of doubt: The February RFC was about incidents before those that prompted this RFA.

Addendum at 17:26, August 18, 2005 (UTC): The incivility is now spreading to Talk:Guantanamo Bay where Keetoowah has asserted that other editors do not know what they are talking about (this summary may not be fair since it is out of context).

Statement by User:Project2501a (interested third party)
You might also want to check out Talk: Condoleezza Rice concerning User:Keetoowah's behaviour. Project2501a 02:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Statement by User:Kelly Martin (vaguely interested third party)
User:Keetoowah is an abrasive editor who is very obviously pushing a point of view and whose conduct frequently steps well over the accepted boundaries of civility. However, I haven't seen him actually edit war; in my experience he respects consensus when actually editing articles, responding instead to edits he disapproves of by unleashing increasingly nasty comments on talk pages. While I don't encourage such an abrasive discussion style, it sure beats the hell out of edit warring. Any remedy for his conduct should respect the fact that his conduct with respect to articles (as opposed to talk pages) does not appear to need correction. I feel that the inclusion of his point of view benefits Wikipedia, and would be disappointed to see him leave.

I believe the histories of Ward Churchill and Talk:Ward Churchill adequately demonstrate this editing pattern. I am less familiar with his history on other articles, but I think this one is especially informative because he has such a strong point of view on Churchill and yet manages to avoid letting it totally get out of hand in the article. Kelly Martin 21:23, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by User:Viajero (interested third party)
As was documented in the RfC in February and can be amply seen on the Talk page archives of Ward Churchill, Keetoowah has a habit of lashing out at other editors with whom he disagrees with exceptional anger and hostility. His lack of collegial spirit and the disrespect he shows towards others is incompatible with the nature of this collaborative undertaking. In particular, he urgently needs to take a timeout from the Ward Churchill article. -- Viajero | Talk 21:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Statement by User:PHenry (interested third party)
Keetoowah has now threatened legal action against User:Zoe, in violation of the No legal threats rule. To make matters worse, Keetoowah's accusation against her is demonstrably false--Zoe had merely reformatted a comment that had been left by another user, 66.117.136.44. Along with his legal threat, Keetoowah made a series of vile and intimidating personal slurs  against the innocent Zoe, and submitted a highly irregular VfD on the RfC that had been opened about him in February of this year.

Keetoowah's attacks on other users have clearly intensified in even the short amount of time since this RfA was filed. I believe the Arbitration Committee should agree to accept this case. --PHenry 18:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keetoowah has now attempted to eradicate a Keep vote on the VfD page he started. --PHenry 21:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Statement by BD2412 (concerned third party)
I seem to have stumbled late upon this discussion, but I must defend my friend Keetoowah, who I think is generally a good editor and contributor. I am aware that he is often emplys in a blunt and confrontational tone in talk page discussions and edit summaries, and occasionally levels insults at others. I am also aware that he comes from a strong point of view. In my opinion, none of these characteristics rise to the level of disrupting Wikipedia. To the contrary, Keetoowah properly (if abrasively) holds feet to the fire in demanding solid substantiation of claims made in a certain set of articles. He is consistent in this regard - he does not add unsourced or insubstantial claims to articles on subjects representing the opposite end of his political views. He is also respectful of demonstrable facts, quite capable of compromise, and enjoyable to interact with once you get to know him. Please bear this in mind when considering the claims brought above. -- BD2412 talk 19:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/1/1/0)

 * Recuse Fred Bauder 11:35, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept. James F. (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Reject. It looks like a one time incident. &rarr;Raul654 17:45, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Reject &#10149;the Epopt 21:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC) The further evidence Keetoowah has submitted changed my mind: Accept &#10149;the Epopt 03:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept. Jayjg (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept. Neutralitytalk 01:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision=

No Personal Attacks
1) No personal attacks


 * Passed 6-0

No legal threats
2) No legal threats


 * Passed 6-0

Legal threats
1) Keetoowah threatened legal action against User:Zoe, in violation of the No legal threats rule.


 * Passed 6-0

Personal attacks
2) Keetoowah made a number of personal attacks against other Wikipedians


 * Passed 6-0

Warning for legal threats
1) Keetoowah is warned that legal threats are unacceptable.


 * Passed 6-0

Personal attack parole
2) If Keetoowah makes a personal attack on another contibutor, an admin may ban him for a short time, up to three days.


 * Passed 6-0