Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Keetoowah

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia: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, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 2005-02-15T11:30+0000), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 04:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC).

This is sham. An anon user made this comment about me, Keetoowah:

It has become a habit for certain Free Republic folk to pose as Native Americans or members of other minorities, in the course of plying their propaganda and disinformation.

This is a portion of a user profile that I find difficult to credit as authentic:

"I am the user named Keetoowah. I am an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. Keetoowah means "key" in Cherokee. I live in Houston, Texas. I am an investment banker, which means that I raise financing for corporations."

The Cherokee word for key is pronounced s di-i s di.

He may be a registered Cherokee, but it's doubtful. There are Cherokee Dictionaries online, as well as extensive discussions of the Keetowah legends and history. Please avail yourselves of them rather than accepting my word, that of an unseen stranger.

When people of our tribe speak or write in a harsh way to others, we do it with our own names. It's very un-Cherokee to hide behind an assumed name and sling dung, like a blind old drunk fighting smoke and echoes.

I respectfully suggest that it's far more likely that this person intends to defame The Cherokee Nation and The Keetowah Band, than that he might actually be what he claims. Indeed, were he even a skilled provocateur, he'd have researched his cover story enough to learn the right words.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Keetoowah"


NOW I'M GETTING COMMENTS FROM OTHER WHO ARE COMMENTING ON ME BEING WRONG. THE ABOVE COMMENTS ARE NASTY, RACIST ATTACKS ON ME PERSONALLY. ----

Statement of the dispute[edit]

User:Keetoowah makes violent personal attacks on other users.

Description[edit]

User:Keetoowah is aggressive, taunts makes personal attacks on talk pages. Some of these attacks include nationalistic provocations. Keetowah seems to consider that any editor who does not support his point of view is a necessarily a supporter of John Kerry or Al Gore, and attacks accordingly.

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Taunt on Gore / Kerry / Dukakis [1] against User:Rama
  2. Nationalistic personal attack on User:David.Monniaux [2] in answer to a call not to make taunts with respect to US internal politics [3]

Applicable policies[edit]

  1. Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Attempt at warning user of disruptive behavior [4]
  2. Attempt at warning user about irrelevant taunts on Talk pages [5]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. David.Monniaux 11:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Rama 12:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Rhobite 21:56, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC). A pretty clear-cut case, Wikipedia isn't a debate site. Keetoowah, if you're interested in working on an encyclopedia you're welcome here. If you're only interested in provoking arguments (and kudos to Rama and David for not taking the bait), you've chosen the wrong site. Continuing these attacks will quickly lead to lengthier blocks, and an eventual ban from the site. Rhobite 21:56, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Seconded. Wikipedia isn't a debate site. 172 07:12, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Keetoowah frequently imputes reprehensible motives to people who disagree with him [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] and has acted supremely uninterested in negotiating any kind of good-faith compromise on points of contention [12]. In addition, he has attempted to remove NPOV tags from articles without discussion, in the midst of ongoing Talk page discussions that demonstrate, prima facie, that the neutrality of the article is being disputed. [13] [14] --Paul 23:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Viajero 17:44, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. He has since posted a personal attack to Zoe's user page accusing him of being racist. This is not nice behavior. There is also a second personal attack that might be sockpupetry. --Gorgonzilla 16:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Keetoowah has also been quite rude and unco-operative in Talk:Guantanamo Bay. —kooo 09:04, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Keetoowah has also vandalized the user page of Eleemosynary recently. Karmafist 22:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. On the Talk:Guantanamo Bay, Keetoowah resorted to name calling against one person who disagreed with him [15]. He refered to Tony Sidaway as "Tony Sideabit" and I sincerely doubt that it was simply a typo. DaemonSaber 22:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

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.

Forget it. This is a Star Chamber. I'm not even going to participate. Waste of time. Users like Wolfman are constanting attacking me personally and nothing is said. [1] [2][3] The guy doesn't get blocked, etc. It is a railroad, not a fair hearing. Don't have time for this one-sided inquisition.----Keetoowah 03:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My apologies. Wolfman 04:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is a mob mentality behind this Star Chamber treatment. If I don't bow down to the bully tactics put together by the various accusors of this, they drag me in front of this show trial. But other users go untouched. For example, I was personally racially attacked in this situation and yet absolutely nothing happened to 82.10.34.34. Absolutely nothing happened to him!----Keetoowah 05:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Some User also personally attacked me, but nothing happened to the 66.27.78.184 . The fact that Wolfman, 82.10.34.34 and 66.27.78.184 can personally attack me but I get dragged into this joke of a one-sided farce is incredible. The amazing part is that I did NOT even notice the personal attack by 66.27.78.184 until Rama just happened to call attention to the personal attack!!! What a coincidence! Now, of course Rama is one my accusers. Speaking of a mob mentality!----Keetoowah 05:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I just happened to notice this petty vandalism on Keetoowah's page; given that such things occured in the past [16], [17]and were reverted by Keetoowah, and since I though that Keetoowah was blocked at the time (I thus didn't know whether he was able to edit his own page at the time), I took the liberty to revert myself. The IP address of the vandal was 66.27.78.184, a US address, while I live in Europe (naturally you'll have to trust my work for it, as well as for me not SSHing from a US computer).
I just think that Keetoowah makes here a display of a priori distrust and brings attention to his comment "deleted the vandalism from a Nazi Democrat", something which I think rather harms his position. Rama 06:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The whole thing is a complete joke. Take a look at note 11, which has been listed by Paul as an example supposedly where I, according to Paul, place bad motives on the person that disagrees with me. Just take a look at point 11. There is absolutely nothing there that I should be ashamed of. I never commented on 172's motives or Paul's motives or anyone else's in point 11. I just pointed out that Byrd has a long history of being a racist and that is, IMHO, the most important aspect of Byrd's racist career. There is nothing in point 11 where I personally attacked anyone. So, what you have here is a bunch of trumped up allegations by a bunch of people that don't like what I'm saying about various topics, such as Byrd's racist past and its importance in the Byrd article. So what this whole thing comes down to is that only certain people get pulled up on this bogus charges when users like Wolfman, 66.27.78.184, and 82.10.34.34 don't have absolutely any actions taken against them for personal attacks, but if I dare have the temerity to argue that we should point out the 60-year racist track record of Robert Byrd then I will get dragged into this Star Chamber.-----Keetoowah 05:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Keetoowah is really the victim here. I should not have insinuated he had "anger management" issues. Wolfman 05:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Wolfman for making my point by exhibiting your sarcasm. Enough said.----Keetoowah 06:07, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Outside view[edit]

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.

From what I've read on the talk page I concluded that Keetoowah is an obnoxious user, who tried to provocate or depreciate with the aid of personal attacks and unjust generalizations. Apparently he disrespects users only because of their citizenship. Other contributions of him make me consider him to be a bit obnoxious and arrogant in general but usually he does not insult - this is an exception.

"I'm so sorry for you" is a sarcastic personal attack.

"What's it like living in a former world power that is nothing but an impotent, second-rate country with an inferiority complex???" is an insulting attack against the other user's country, but the attack can also be considered personal as Keetoowah replaced "France" with "you" in the following sentences.

"It tees you off that no one and I mean no one pays any damn attention to you any more" is an accusation based on the simple stereotype he has in mind.

"so much so that you have to buy Saddam's oil off of the black market and invade third world countries like the Ivory Coast and then lecture Americans" slander based on stereotype.

"We just laugh at you. Have Frog Day!!!" arrogant, personal attack.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Deep Black 22:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. 172 07:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. --XmarkX 13:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Epistaxis 19:53, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  5. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 19:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside View[edit]

I was just on votes for deletion where I saw Keetoowah try to delete this rfc, and use legal threats while doing so. This seems to break not only WP:POINT, but also WP:CIVIL and Wikipedia:No legal threats. This behavior alone, let alone the comments above, should be seen as enough to see this user as a liability to the Wikipedia community. Karmafist 15:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Karmafist 15:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I find the fact that he tried to delete this RfC awkward (at best), but I don't really see a legal threat in there, except his stating that it "is libelous". Maybe I'm misunderstanding the context, though, but some clarification would be nice. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 19:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Keetoowah&oldid=1064220381"