Wikipedia

User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Abusive Correspondents/HanzoHattori

< User:Geo Swan | Guantanamo


update

edit

User:HanzoHattori was permanently blocked, following a discussion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/HanzoHattori#Outside_view_by_Geo_Swan. I cited these notes there. Four people (1) read them, (2) commented that they did support action against HH. Geo Swan (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Summary

edit

User:HanzoHattori is a wikipedia userid created in 2006.

IMO his or her correspondence style is that one finds on a partisan blog, not one that conforms with the wikipedia's policies and procedures. He or she has been blocked three times, most recently on February 23 2007, for one week, for violating wp:npa.

His or her correspondence with me have been, without exception, abusive.

I have urged them, in each of my replies, to make a greater effort to conform to wp:civ, with no apparent success.

Timeline

edit
date HanzoHattori's posts Geo Swan's posts notes Others
concur?		 Others
disagree?
2007/03/20 "crazy"
  • Our first interaction, ever.
  • Violation of wp:civ
  • Use of inflammatory language, like "crazy"
  • HH offers an emotion laden concern of the subcategories of Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees, without offering any meaningful, specific criticisms.
2007/03/20 civil reply IMO
2007/03/20 civil reply IMO
  • I acknowledge inexperience with the care and use of categories.
  • I request civil, specific advice.
  • I address the concern that the topics of the categories are "trivial".
2007/03/21 Sarcastic reply
2007/03/22 civil reply IMO
2007/03/23 sarcastic reply
2007/03/23 civil reply IMO
  • Repeat my request HH comply with wp:civ.
  • Repeat my explanation, in more detail, why the categories aren't "trivial".
2007/03/23 sarcastic reply
  • There is a substantive element to HH's incivil reply. He suggests lists. I address this in my reply.
  • The rest of his reply however, I regard as either an innocent, but unfortunate, instance of systemic bias — or, possibly, conscious POV pushing.
2007/03/26 civil reply IMO
  • I address his concern over lists.
  • I state that, IMO, all the categories can have lists built around them, and I am working on it.
  • I address my concern that his or her perception of the triviality of these categories may be an instance of systemic bias.
2007/03/26 uncivil
  • HH directed my attention to Wikipedia:Overcategorization. But, they didn't say which categories they thought were examples of overcategorization.
  • Earlier HH had said they knew of "a rule".
    • WP:OCAT is not a rule. It is a guideline.
    • After reading it, I can't see how it applies to any of the categories I started.
    • I believe I have already addressed the concerns in this policy guideline, in sufficient detail to match the civility and seriousness with which HH is bringing to the table.
  • So, I did not get around to replying. I don't think I owe anyone an apology or explanation for not replying to an uncivil correspondent, who doesn't address, or acknowledge, the points I have tried to make.
2007/03/27 uncivil
  • Instead of addressing my questions, and the points I raised, on the talk page, HH nominates all the subcategories for deletion.
  • The only explanation HH makes is that the categories are "just silly". IMO this is not a meaningful explanation, not when I had shown patience in trying to address his concerns in spite of his rudeness. IMO a violation of wp:civ and wp:not#wikipedia is not a battlefield.
  • HH did not show me the usual courtesy of giving me a heads-up that he was nominating these categories for deletion. IMO a violation of wp:not#wikipedia is not a battlefield.
2007/03/27 off-topic
2007/03/27 personal attack
  • HH levels the ugly accusation against me that some of my contributions constitute "spamming". This is a violation of wp:npa.
  • I dispute that adding an image of the trailer where the Tribunals sat — to articles about Guantanamo captives who attended their Tribunals — constitutes spam.
2007/03/29 another personal attack
  • HH links to another comment I made elsewhere, with a mocking comment, and without explaining what, if anything, it has to do with the viability of these categories.
  • No, contributing to the wikipedia is not my job. I am a volunteer just like everybody else.
  • This is the second time HH has suggested I have done something that requires administrator intervention. As with the first instance, he does not say what act I committed that requires administrator intervention. If he or she truly felt I was doing something that violated a wikipedia policy he should assume good faith, and give me a civil, serious, specific heads-up. Sarcastic hints like this, IMO, are another form of personal attack.
2007/03/29 I ask for help I ask the administrator who blocked HH for violating wp:npa on February 19 2007 for their opinion of HH's behaviour, and my choices.
2007/03/29 I give HH a headsup I deserved a heads-up when he or she nominated the categories for deletion. I figure HH deserves a heads-up that I have asked for advice about our interaction.
2007/03/30 drowns me out
2007/03/30 propaganda
2007/03/30 ugly questions of my motives

In General HH uses the rhetorical device of refraining from actually saying, specifically, the nature of his concern. Instead he uses mockery and sarcasm, in ways I believe are a violation of the wikipedia's goals and ideals.

(An earlier version of this timeline incorrectly stated the HH did not add the tags that trigger a watchlist entry for those who use the categories. That was incorrect. I regret the error.)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Geo_Swan/Guantanamo/Abusive_Correspondents/HanzoHattori&oldid=494034536"