User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Abusive Correspondents/HanzoHattori

update

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

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

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	Civil request for HH to offer a civil explanation for their concern about. Civil suggestion to HH that the appropriate venue to discuss concerns is Category talk:Guantanamo Bay detainees
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		HH's reply is sarcastic. HH does not address, and, perhaps, did not read my reply on Category talk:Guantanamo Bay detainees — which I consider a violation of wp:civ.
2007/03/22		civil reply IMO	Remind HH wp:not#wikipedia is not a battlefield. Repeat my request for civil, specific explanations of HH's concern.
2007/03/23	sarcastic reply		Instead of a civil reply, with substance, HH replies with mockery, in spite of my request to comply with wp:civ. I had —already— addressed the concern that the categories were trivial, over on Category talk:Guantanamo Bay detainees, so HH's reply appears to be a provocative violation of wp:not#wikipedia is not a battlefield.
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		This comment has nothing to do with the categories HH nominated. If he has concerns over whether the article Guantanamo Bay detention camp belongs in Category:Concentration camps or Category:Political repression in the United States why not raise those concerns on Talk:Guantanamo Bay detention camp, Category talk:Concentration camps, Category talk:Political repression in the United States, or possibly the talk pages of the wikipedians who added it to those categories?
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.)