Wikipedia:Requests for comment/HanzoHattori

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, 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 with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. 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: 10:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 18:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

The article Battle of Washita River has been at the center of major content disputes since at least 26 June 2007, with related edit-warring and continual problems with personal attacks and incivility as well as refusal by some editors to abide by Wikipedia's core content policies WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. HanzoHattori has been central to these conflicts, as has been Custerwest (talk · contribs) who is also the subject of an RfC that we've prepared (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Custerwest. The conflict and mutual hostility between HanzoHattori and Custerwest continue to be disruptive, not to mention highly unpleasant to anyone who might otherwise be interested in helping improve the article.
As a result of contentiousness and edit warring, the article has been fully protected since 1 July 2007. HanzoHattori's participation on Talk:Battle of Washita River has been more disruptive than conducive to efforts to resolve disputes and find consensus, with continuing personal attacks on Custerwest as well as other edits that seem to be geared more towards disruption, incivility disguised as wit, and argument for the sake of argument than anything else. HanzoHattori completely ignored an offer for informal mediation (an offer which was also not accepted by Custerwest); this is our next step to attempting to resolve the dispute.

[edit] Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

Basically the overall outcome we want is:
  1. for Battle of Washita River to be unprotected;
  2. a civil working environment at Battle of Washita River, its talk pages, and the user pages of involved editors, in which all editors are adhering to both content and personal conduct policies and true good-faith efforts to find and abide by consensus. Users simply have no business being Wikipedia editors otherwise.
  3. Because of longstanding difficulties in getting either HanzoHattori or Custerwest (talk · contribs) (for whom we have also prepared an RfC) to abide by core policies such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR, we would also like to have a written commitment at Talk:Battle of Washita River by each of them to read and adhere to these policies or; if not, to forgo working on the Battle of Washita River article, with a single-article ban per WP:BAN if necessary to enforce it.

[edit] Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

HanzoHattori became the target of personal attacks by Custerwest shortly after Custerwest began editing the article Battle of Washita River in earnest. HanzoHattori has responded in kind, with frequent personal attacks, incivility, baiting, and trolling. While HanzoHattori has gained at least some consensus with other editors, who like him decry Custerwest's biased and possibly racist viewpoint with regard to Indians, HanzoHattori nonetheless has resisted learning or abiding by core Wikipedia content policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, continuing to believe that only "official government/military sources" need be used for writing the article. While sometimes stating a half-hearted support for other editors to improve the article, he frequently questions any use of sources beyond those he prefers, and frequently aruges at Talk:Battle of Washita River about topics (e.g., Serbian nationalism) that are unrelated to improving Battle of Washita River. HanzoHattori has been the recipient of a 3RR block for edit warring and the subject of a WP:ANI report regarding this dispute (WP:ANI#Problems between HanzoHattori and Custerwest.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

[edit] Personal attacks, incivility, trolling, baiting (WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL)

HanzoHattori has a longstanding history on Wikipedia of making personal attacks and violation policies regarding to civility, which have twice resulted in blocks (1 week block commencing 20 February 2007 for personal attacks, 2 week block commencing 2 May 2007 for violations of WP:CIVIL and namecalling, as well as violation of WP:OWN). This account restricts itself to personal attacks, trolling, and incivility related to Battle of Washita River and Talk:Battle of Washita River, most of which has been directed toward Custerwest (talk · contribs), with whom HanzoHattori shares a strong mutual hostility. The two of them can scarcely be extricated one from another when it comes to personal attacks, as each considers himself to be justified in making a personal attacks if a personal attack has been made on him (for HanzoHattori, e.g. [1]). Nor does HanzoHattori let go of insults made to him even weeks after they were made. For example, in personal attacks on him on 27-28 June 2007, Custerwest called him an "ignorant monkey" and a "damn idiot"[2], a "jerk",[3], and as someone with a "leftist ideology" who was "a clown"[4]; hence, HanzoHattori's edit summaries and comments aimed at annoying or directly attacking Custerwest contain frequent, puportedly humorous and/or self-deprecating references to leftist ideologies, monkeys, idiots, and clowns. HanzoHattori also continues to believe (erroneously) that Custerwest is French, so references to that show up a lot too, as does Custerwest's eponymous blog. Because these "humorous" references pepper numerous edit summaries and comments, edits and comments that might otherwise seem innocuous actually serve to disrupt and keep the conflict alive, acting as annoyances not only to Custerwest but also to other editors (like us, the complainants) who are attempting to resolve conflicts and move ahead with the article.
This is not a comprehensive list of problematic edits, but is representative.
  1. 16:44, 27 June 2007 - "You know where you can put your little blog? Yes, you guessed. Have a nice day."
  2. 16:32, 27 June 2007 - response to direct personal attack by Custerwest: "U.S. Army Center of Military History. The definitive source, not some blog of yours. I didn't finish yet - guess I'm a massive jerk."
  3. 17:37, 27 June 2007 - "My dear little revisionist: CMH is a very serious US Army agency. Send your grievances to:[5]"
  4. 18:27, 27 June 2007 - "I told you where you can adress your grievances. Go bother the US Army."
  5. 18:49, 27 June 2007 - "Enjoy being banned."
  6. 19:13, 27 June 2007 - "I told you, tell this to Brig. Gen. John S. Brown. According to him, he and his institute "remain mindful of the Center’s responsibility to publish an accurate and objective account," so don't forget to call him "idiot" or "monkey", and to threaten to kick his "damn ass"."
  7. 20:31, 27 June 2007 - "...I'm not playing edit-warring. As soon as you are banned (and you're going to be), I am reverting, so don't bother...." "...Also a parting word of advice: don't try to "kick damn asses" of the "idiot monkeys" in uniform, because they will either jail you or shoot you. Or both."
  8. 16:16, 28 June 2007 - "It is HanzoHattori's game, of course. Now direct your sight at the campaign infobox and see its name. SURPRISE. Don' get a heart attack."
  9. 21:55, 29 June 2007 - "You are just doing "nananana-I cant hear you", right?..." "...So, you can stop playing stupid now, because I know you just try another tactics. Stupid tactics...."
  10. 23:01, 29 June 2007 - "This is a political meeting. We are the Extreme Left Jerk Party. Welcome, comrade."
  11. 23:38, 29 June 2007 - "We here at the communist commune disregard the internet law (besides the Godwin's Law), you capitalist opressor and also hitler."
  12. 01:06, 30 June 2007 - (baiting incident after Custerwest was reported for 3RR violation) - "Comrade Custerwest! It's possible your glorious charge ends right here. Any last words so we may remember you fondly? You know, like "Custer's luck! The biggest Indian village on the continent!"? This stuff?"
  13. 01:20, 30 June 2007 - (baiting incident after Custerwest was reported for 3RR violation) - "Ah nyet, my dear Comrade. I'm just getting into my role of the "extreme left clown"."
  14. 01:43, 30 June 2007 - (Baiting incident after Custerwest's 3RR block} - "Wikipedia is a communist community. We in North Korea took over it when everyone thought we have no Internet access. (Haha! sirry imperiarists!) If you can't accept this, you can always found some Custeropedia in the style of Wookiepedia but for "doctors in history"." Note also edit summary: "'General' Custer sez: 'Better dead then re... oh wait'
  15. 01:48, 30 June 2007 - (Baiting incident after Custerwest's 3RR block, in reply to Custerwest's question "how old are you?") - "My political officer says this is a classified information."
  16. 09:48, 1 July 2007 - "I don't know if you noticed (you seem to have hard times to understand many things), but you are actually in minority here (and no one really cares who you proclaim to be, "doctor in history" or the king of Scotland)...."
  17. 11:20, 1 July 2007 - "...As I said several times already, you either completely don't understand what the people say to you, or you just play stupid. Personally, I don't care...."
  18. 11:43, 1 July 2007 - "Im' published in North Korea [reference to Custerwest's claim to having been published in French]. Also, nice try with 3RR report on me. Oh, the irony. Well, Custer. I guess you learned nothing, and so it's the bye-bye time. I only can guess if just for a time being, or forever?" [In fact, Custerwest's 3RR report against HanzoHattori resulted in HH being blocked.]
  19. 07:18, 18 July 2007 - "Btw, another Frenchman sez: Do you remember me I guess. You treated me as a racist because my brother built [website about the general Custer]. I'm not expecting an answer from you, I just wanted to send you informations about the battle of the Washita, the true one I mean. (...) Why are they always the French? Is Custer legend some cultural succesfull cultural export to this country which I thought hates the English and don't like the American much?"
  20. 10:48, 19 July 2007 - "This in the very exact opposition to Cw, who notoriously falsified and misinterpreted various sources, and thought Wikipedia is the extention of his blog (his so precioussss footnotes being then worse than worthless, because each has to be checked for his own lies - why bother, at all?)."
  21. 09:40, 22 July 2007 - started new discussion titled "The case of Wikipedia Idiots vs France (possib le solution)"
  22. 09:41, 1 August 2007 - "Hey Cw, who's that Historian Gregory Michno? I actually never heard about H. G. Michno, and so did Wikipedia. Also, I didn't quite understand, "You remember me Captain Benteen with Custer. Pathetic, fanatical, but eventually terrible loser." - why I should "remeber you", Mr. Benteen? I don't think we ever met before few weeks ago. But no problem, "buddy", I'll remeber now."
Baiting incident. On 30 Jun 2007, after Custerwest was notified by HanzoHattori that he'd been reported for violation of WP:3RR, HanzoHattori made edits on Custerwest's talk page baiting him.[6][7] Just prior to the block being places, Yksin wrote on User talk:HanzoHattori asking him to stop provoking Custerwest.[8] HanzoHattori wrote back, apparently agreeing to stop,[9] but in fact continuing (after Custerwest was blocked) with two additional baiting comments.[10][11] HanzoHattori only stopped the baiting after it was mentioned to two admins, who posted cease & desist notices on HanzoHattori's talk page -- WJBscribe[12] and Akradecki[13] -- followed up by another caution by Biophys.[14]
Making belligerent, baiting, or trolling comments in edit summaries
  1. 18:35, 27 June 2007 - "do you want to get blocked? Y/N (if yes, keep trying)"
  2. 00:12, 30 June 2007 - "→External links - communizm sez: no blogz lolz)"
  3. 10:21, 1 July 2007 - "rv to 08:43, 1 July 2007 Murderbike (come on, DJ Custer)"
  4. 10:29, 1 July 2007 - "rv to 08:43, 1 July 2007 Murderbike (and I double dare you)"
HanzoHattori's casual attitude about personal attacks and incivility can be seen in his reaction to being blocked on 1 July 2007: "My Custerwest sparring? Okay, vacations time :) (No, no appeal)" HanzoHattori only appealed his block after he realized it wasn't for personal attacks/incivlity, but for 3RR violation.[15]

[edit] Edit warring (WP:3RR, WP:BATTLE)

HanzoHattori has a prior history on Wikipedia of being blocked for edit warring, garnering an 8-hour block on 11 October 2006, a 31-hour block on 17 April 2007, and a 12-hour block on 12 June 2007. Additionally, he was blocked for 48 hours on 8 November 2006 for removing reliably verified sources from articles after administrator warning. In the current disputes over Battle of Washita River, he took part in edit warring on 1 July 2007 which resulted in a 72-hour block (later removed early after the article itself was placed under full protection). During this edit, he appeared to be daring Custerwest to revert the article to his own version again with baiting comments in his edit summaries. He also kept careful count, disputing his later block on the grounds that he had only reverted three times [16]; Yamla denied his appeal based on "You are not entitled to a guaranteed 3 reverts, particularly given your history of violations." [17]
  1. 08:56, 1 July 2007 - "see the definition - POW is a captured combatant)"
  2. 10:21, 1 July 2007 - "rv to 08:43, 1 July 2007 Murderbike (come on, DJ Custer)"
  3. 10:29, 1 July 2007 - "rv to 08:43, 1 July 2007 Murderbike (and I double dare you)"
HanzoHattori was reported for 3RR violation by Custerwest [18] and responded by making a 3RR report against Custerwest. [19] Admin Maxim issued a 72-hour block of HanzoHattori. [20] Subsequently an uninvolved editor questioned why HanzoHattori was blocked by Custerwest wasn't; [21] admin Ackradecki, who had blocked Custerwest the day before for 3RR violation, investigated [22]. finding HanzoHattori's complaint unfounded (we're not so sure of that ourselves -- Custerwest simply didn't seem to know how to completely revert an article, but rather added back the same material piecemeal). Akradecki said further that "This has already been posted at 3RR, and Hanzo has already been blocked for 3RR for 72 hours, an action to which I concur (I probably would have added some time for incivility, but them's the breaks)"; Akradecki also wrote to all involved edit-warring editors warning them to stop edit-warring or he would be issuing vandalism blocks. As it happened, edit-warring continued without HanzoHattori (though Custerwest leveled an accusation that HanzoHattori had asked User:Biophys to act on his behalf to revert the Battle of Washita River article again -- Biophys' edit is here; Custerwest's accusation is here). Ultimately the article was fully protected by admin Maxim for a 7-day period commencing 1 July 2007 [23] and full protection renewed indefinitely by Maxim on 8 July 2007 [24]. Except for four edits made on 8 July 2007 during a brief period of unprotection, the article has been uneditable except by editors since 1 July, due to the edit warring of 29-30 Jun and 1 July. After protecting the article on 1 July 2007, Maxim (under former name Evilclown93) also decided to give HanzoHattori another chance, and unblocked him early. [25]

[edit] Editing other user's talk page comments (WP:VANDAL)

  • 23:43, 13 July 2007 - revised Yksin's comments, which Yksin replaced here and addressed in a reply to HanzoHattori here.
  • In discussion at User talk:HanzoHattori here, HanzoHattori justifies his removal of comments he is offended by on the article talk page . But when Custerwest removed comments from Talk:Battle of Washita River here and here, HanzoHattori replaced them here and characterized Custerwest's action as "censorship" in his edit summary and here. Note that while replacing the text that Custerwest removed, he simultaneously removed a comment that Custerwest had added, which Yksin replaced.

[edit] NPOV & NOR

HanzoHattori seems to believe that the best sources to use for the Battle of Washita River article a history from the Army, considers it to be the "official history" of the Battle of the Washita. Part of the reason HanzoHattori relies on the "official" U.S. government account appears to be from comparing accusations about Cheyenne raiding in Kansas (as a cause of Sheridan's policy of total war that led Custer to the Washita) with the case of Srebrenica, in which Serbs are said to have "fabricated the massacres of Serb civilians by Bosniaks to justify the genocide." Therefore, in case the Cheyenne raiding was also a propaganda fabrication, modern-day official sources (government or military), according to HanzoHattori, must confirm that the raids took place or they cannot be mentioned.[26] Note that it has been shown that the government/military sources HanzoHattori prefers do confirm that the raids took place; see Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 1#Looking at HanzoHattori's sources.
  1. 20:31, 27 June 2007 - "You can not question the US Army's official history of the US Army. It's their job to document and research their own history. Not yours. They have access to all the archives and documents, because all of these is theirs. You can't whitewash their findings ("accurate and objective"), not to mention the sources like these:..." etc. "What you can use are the other modern official sources."
  2. 08:35, 2 July 2007 - "if this comes from the military or the government then, it MUST be confirmed by the military or the government NOW."
  3. 08:58, 2 July 2007 - "Instead, they used the official account (United Nations), and I propose to do the same (US Government)."
HanzoHattori considers it a waste of time and effort to do research in other sources such as modern histories of the battle (e.g., Greene's 2004 history Washita: The U.S. Army and the Southern Cheyennes, 1867-1869, Stan Hoig's 1976/1980 The Battle of the Washita, Hardorff's 2006 Washita Memories: Eyewitness Views of Custer's Attack on Black Kettle's Village.) A comment he made to Yksin:
  1. 02:57, 14 July 2007 - "I don't know why you do this at all. Wikipedia articles do not have to be 'complete' beyond the stub status (it wasn't, and there are many).... Look: you are spending A LOT of time on the unneeded details, while the entire years of the Afghan Civil War (1992-1996) (most of a major war) are missing completely. Think about it. No, I have no problem with you reading or even writing a lot on this subject, I just put this into a perspective."
  2. 12:42, 14 July 2007 - "I still don't understand why you feel need to confuse the reader with the unfound rumours, outdated propaganda, and self-promotion/defense lies by the certain individuals. I'd understand this if this was a case like in many modern conflicts, where both sides say the very different things about various events - but here even the US government dropped this altogether once and for all." This comment was in response to a lengthy discussion by Yksin about the actual contents of Jerome Greene's book Washita, which had been used as a source by Custerwest and which, when Yksin finally got a copy, proved to have a wealth of information which contradicted the one-sided point-of-view promoted by Custerwest. Greene's book, like other literature on Washita, recognizes that the primary sources contradict one another, and there are numerous controversial issues about Washita that even today continue to be matters of argument.
While fighting against Custerwest's POV account of the Washita battle, HanzoHattori is simultaneously reluctant to do the work or permit others to do the work to make the article a truly NPOV account. Where Custerwest wishes to present from the sources only that with which he personally agrees, HanzoHattori advocates a short, stubby article that preferably uses what he contends is the "official account of the U.S. government" and to avoid "confus[ing] the reader with the unfound[ed] rumors" etc. of the conflicting accounts found in the historical record and hence also in modern historical accounts of the battle.
  1. 20:37, 3 July 2007 - "Now, back to what I wrote a paragraph above: Let's stop researching and interpreting this incident (this is the job of Washita Battlefield) further beyond what the civilian government and the military found out to be hard facts people should know. If you know any reason to doubt their (stated) neutrality or accuracy, tell me, becuase I don't. I believe everything needed for an article is right there (and without reading between the lines or whatever)."

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. No personal attacks (WP:NPA)
  2. Civility (WP:CIVIL)
  3. Three-revert rule (WP:3RR)
  4. Wikipedia is not a battleground (WP:BATTLE)
  5. Vandalism (WP:VANDAL) - Modifying users' comments
  6. Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)
  7. No original research (WP:NOR)

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

(provide diffs and links)

[edit] Personal attacks, incivility, trolling

  1. Murderbike: 19:22, 29 June 2007 - "Hey, I appreciate the work your trying to do to this article. I would suggest paying attention to your tone on the talk page though. I know it can get frustrating, but it can really alienate other editors, and administrators as well to talk so sarcastically. But keep up the POV watch!"
  2. Murderbike: 20:10, 29 June 2007 - request to both Custerwest and HanzoHattori not to use his (Murderbike's) talk page to insult each other, and to be civil
  3. Yksin: 22:58, 22 July 2007 - "Please stop trying to get me involved in your personal animosities toward Custerwest or any other user."
  4. Yksin: 23:11, 22 July 2007 - ":I would want to publicly register my disappointment with the continuous and seemingly endless carping by HanzoHattori about Custerwest, and Custerwest about HanzoHattori, and to ask both of you to please stop it. Even now, even under this header [Offer for Mediation], you both are engaging in personal attacks on each other."
  5. Yksin: 00:06, 23 July 2007 - "You are both engaging in personal attacks on each other, which besides violating Wikipedia policies about civil behavior and No personal attacks, is also highly disruptive to Wikipedia in general and attempts to improve this article in particular -- especially in terms of trying to resolve disputes so that maybe one day this article can be unprotected & work on it can proceed. Please stop."
  6. Yksin: 00:16, 23 July 2007 - "Again, this is the article talk page for the article Battle of Washita River, intended for working on the improvement of that specific article. It is not the talk page for disputes involving Serb nationalists and their international supporters, it is not a general message board, it is not a forum for nontopical discussion or complaints & further personal attacks on other users with whom you disagree. Please stop."
  7. Yksin: 21:04, 29 July 2007 - "Relevance of this discussion [Custerwest on Sand Creek] to the article, please? I have plenty of disagreements with Custerwest too, but this is improper use of a talk page. It appears to be just another personal attack; I advise you both to desist."
  8. Yksin: 21:09, 29 July 2007 - "First to note that User:Felix c is a different individual than User:HanzoHattori. Second to ask, yet again, for users -- notably HanzoHattori, Felix c, and Custerwest -- to please stop using this user page to make personal attacks on one another."
  9. Yksin: 18:07, 1 August 2007 - "Once again, HanzoHattori, please cease from making personal attacks. Please read WP:CIVIL and abide by it."
  10. Yksin: 19:24, 1 August 2007 - final warning placed on User talk:HanzoHattori; see also subsequent addendum; a record of prior warnings from Talk:Battle of Washita River was placed in two subsequent edits[27][28]
It remains to be seen if this last warning will result in any improvement. None of the prior requests have.

[edit] NPOV and NOR

  1. Yksin: Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 1#Looking at HanzoHattori's sources
  2. Yksin: Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 1#More on WP:NOR with regard to authority of sources
  3. Yksin: Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 2#What Greene's book really says
  4. Yksin: Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 2#Reply to Custerwest
  5. Yksin: 03:02, 15 July 2007 - "Short version" and "Long version" of why NPOV/NOR are important
HanzoHattori's response... well, he just doesn't seem to get it, and continues to insist that the only necessary sources are the public domain government/military sources he prefers. This can be seen most clearly in the lengthy discussion at Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 2#Copyvio & misquoted footnote text removed; plagiarism discussion, some of which appears to be argument simply for the sake of argument.

[edit] Attempts to seek consensus through talk page discussion

[edit] Informal mediation

  • In reply to a request from Murderbike for assistance with trying to find consensus, User:Phaedriel made an offer of informal mediation at Talk:Battle of Washita River/Archive 2#Offer for Mediation. Murderbike and Yksin both agreed to participate. Custerwest thanked Phaedriel for offering to help, but fell short of agreeing to participate in informal mediation, instead using his comments to make additional personal attacks on HanzoHattori in particular as well as other editors. HanzoHattori chose to disregard the offer altogether, though did make several personal attacks along the way. Due to the disinterest in participation by either Custerwest or HanzoHattori, informal mediation could not take place. The failure of the offer for informal mediation is the reason we decided to initiate this RfC and the RfC on Custerwest.
  • Note: HanzoHattori has just now disclosed that his statement of whatever in reply to the offer for informal mediation (and accompanying what appeared to be a personal attack on Custerwest)[30] was a "yes."[31] It was not, however, understood as a "yes" by anyone else, including Phaedriel, who immediately below his whatever comment wrote ". I'm especially disappointed at HanzoHattori's decision to completely disregard the proposal, ignoring it even tho he has taken the time to comment under this very header." [32] There has been continuing discussion of HanzoHattori's response to the mediation offer at Talk:Battle of Washita River#Re: informal mediation offer.

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Yksin 10:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Murderbike 19:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. The Evil Spartan 18:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC) I filed an earlier RFC, but had it deleted. You have my permission to have the old content undeleted and used for reference if you wish. I have no wish to be out to get HH, but his incivility is completely over the top. He does appear to have improved somewhat, to his credit, since I filed my RFC. The Evil Spartan 19:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

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. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Outside view

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. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

[edit] Outside view by Dreadstar

We've had very similar difficulties with HanzoHattori on The Holocaust, which is even now protected due to problems he caused by conducting himself in a similiar fashion to what is being described in this RfC; conduct such as edit warring, incivility, etc. – Dreadstar † 22:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. – Dreadstar † 22:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Yksin 20:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Murderbike 23:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. Crum375 00:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  6. The Evil Spartan 18:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. bfigura (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC) I concur. While I don't want to belittle HH's contributions to the Wikipedia, we could avoid a great deal of time and suffering on talk pages and edits if he would adhere to WP:CIV and WP:AGF.

[edit] Outside view by Miskwito

I'm still reading through this RFC (and I'll expand this comment of mine accordingly), but I must say that HanzoHattori's brusque, mocking response to the RFC ([33]), amounting to a snide attempt to brush aside the issue and announce his contempt for the process, is extremely troubling --Miskwito 20:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Yksin 21:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Douglasmtaylor T/C 23:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. – Dreadstar † 18:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Murderbike 23:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. The Evil Spartan 18:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Geo Swan

I too have had extremely unpleasant interactions with HanzoHattori. I found HH unwilling or unable to give civil responses to civil queries. Our interaction occurred four months ago.

  1. HH's first comment on my contribution to the wikipedia were unnecessarily mocking and abusive criticisms of the names of some categories I had created.
  2. I tried to ignore his abuse; I acknowledged I was new to creating categories, and asked some civil questions in order to try to understand HH's concerns.
  3. HH and I exchanged three or four messages, which followed the same format, abuse and mockery in comments from HH, unredeemed by any information that would have been helpful, with civil replies from yours truly.
  4. ...Followed by apparent silence from HH.
  5. HH's next move was to nominate the categories I had created for deletion -- without showing me the usual courtesy of telling me. I didn't learn about the nomination until the discussion was half over.
  6. HH found this insufficient. He directed many off-topic personal attacks upon me. And he vandalized the deletion discussion by posting enormous and off-topic comments, that buried my attempts to defend my use of categories by their sheer volume.

Worth noting is that, even in the deletion discussion, HH seemed unwilling or unable to offer substantive comments. I've wondered whether the reason his responses are abusive, personal, and free of substantive content, is that he is one of those very unfortunate people who is incapable of responding on a content level.

Candidly, Geo Swan 18:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah. It turns out I made some notes following our interaction. Look there for a more complete timeline. Cheers! Geo Swan 20:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Yksin 19:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC). (after having read the interchange about categories which Geo Swan described here and category deletion discussion here)
  2. Dreadstar † 20:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC) I read the links and I completely agree with all of the above. Disruptive and WP:POINT behavior.
  3. Miskwito 00:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC) . HH seemed to be almost gleeful in his attempts to mock or discredit Geo Swan, despite the fact that the AfD discussions should be concerning the articles, not their authors (in most cases). Quite disturbing
  4. Murderbike 19:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC). This is sad.

[edit] Outside view by Biophys

As follows from the "Statement of the dispute", this RfC is primarily about article Battle of Washita River, rather than about Custerwest or HanzoHattori. I support the "Desired outcome" as currently stated in this RfC. Both Custerwest and HanzoHattori should be banned from editing this article if necessary, and the article should be unprotected. Other users are perfectly capable of making the required improvements.Biophys 18:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Belated limiting of my endorsement, after a more careful reading, totally agreeing with the reasons for limitation of endorsement below. Murderbike 19:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Limited endorse, as I believe this RfC is primarily about the behavior of HanzoHattori and CusterWest and not specific to any article under dispute. I support the desired outcome that HanzoHattori should be banned from editing both of these articles (Battle of Washita River and The Holocaust), and that ClusterWest possibly be banned from the Battle article. Battle has been unprotected, but The Holocaust has not. Dreadstar † 19:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Extremely limited endorse. I endorse the part about keeping HanzoHattori and Custerwest clean on the Washita article, but I strongly oppose the suggestion that either of these user-conduct RfCs are only about the article. That's why they're called "user-conduct" RfCs: because both users have user-conduct problems, which continue to need to be addressed. See #Inside view by Yksin below for detail. --Yksin 00:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Pursey

After looking over this RfC and some of the diffs and edit summaries... I'm stunned. I've not seen such consistent and continued incivility, baiting, and disruptiveness from an active user. It's even more stunning that quite a lot of this users edits appear to be constructive. It's almost like two different people in one. I'm quite frankly absolutely disgusted by this conduct. I'm equally as disgusted that the users response to this RfC was "Too Long, Didn't Read".

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Pursey 19:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Murderbike 19:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC). Couldn't agree more.
  3. Miskwito 19:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional views

[edit] Inside view by Yksin

It's now been 10 days since this RfC was initiated, and several other editors have weighed in about difficulties they've had with HanzoHattori in other parts of Wikipedia, mostly also discussing problems of incivility and edit warring. Meantime, HanzoHattori has declined to participate in this RfC[34] (perhaps due to his self-described "deep aversion" and hatred of Wiikipedia bureaucratic procedure,[35][36]) other than to make a brief, somewhat sarcastic comment on this page right after the RfC was initiated[37].

What's happening at Battle of Washita River. Meanwhile, a day after initiating this RfC and the RfC on Custerwest, I initiated an article RfC at Talk:Battle of Washita River#Request for comment, describing many of the same the same issues. HanzoHattori has mainly declined to participate in the article RfC other than to make somewhat ambiguous statements that indicate that possibly perhaps maybe he's resigned his interest in that article[38][39] Custerwest, for his part, has not only not responded to either his own RfC or the article RfC, but has not made any edits at all on Wikipedia since 1 August. Gratifyingly, the article RfC resulted in other, previously uninvolved editors coming to the article, new consensus being developed including an agreement by active editors about how to propose & make new substantive changes. The article's protection status was changed from full protection to semi-protection on 10 August, and work on improving the article has commenced. This was done without banning either HanzoHattori or Custerwest from editing the article, & I'm not sure it's necessary so long as they refrain from editing the article or, if they do, to work first on the talk page to get consensus for any of their proposed changes, just as the rest of us are doing.

Biophys statement. But I don't think that means that all problems are solved. I strongly disagree with Biophys's statement above (in Outside view by Biophys) that "As follows from the 'Statement of the dispute', this RfC is primarily about article Battle of Washita River, rather than about Custerwest or HanzoHattori." Although this RfC did begin with a focus on the local problems we were having with these two user on the Washita article, it's become very clear from the comments of other users here such as The Evil Spartan, Dreadstar, and Geo Swan that HanzoHattori's problems with incivility, making personal attacks, and edit warring have ranged far beyond the bounds of just the Washita article.

Therefore although I could endorse one part of Biophys' statement -- about banning HH & Custerwest from editing the Washita article if necessary (which thus far it hasn't been) and its unprotection (currently its semiprotected, which is appropriate for now) -- I cannot endorse the part saying this RfC is only about that article. (Nor with Custerwest's RfC, for that matter, as Custerwest's POV style of editing has also been discovered in other Custer and Black Kettle-related articles, which are the only articles in which he has thus far shown consistent interest.)

(I might also point out that Biophys was a participant in editing on the Washita article and its talk page in late June, cautioned HanzoHattori a couple of times on civility issues, participated in the late stages of edit warring on the article on 1 July 2007 such as this revert [40] -- and was even accused by Custerwest of acting at HanzoHattori's behest for that 1 July revert [41] So Biophys' view is better characterized as an "Inside view" rather than an "Outside view" of the Battle of Washita River dispute.)

Problems on other articles. I'm especially concerned about the fact that, following edit warring in which HanzoHattori was a prominent participant, the fairly high-profile article The Holocaust continues to languish under full protection, apparently because Dreadstar, who had been working to mediate the dispute there, could not elicit a response from HanzoHattori about whether he would resume edit warring if the article was unprotected.[42] But I wouldn't say that The Holocaust is the only other problem either -- even beyond what's been said here. See, for example, some of HanzoHattori's comments during teh 4-10 August 2007 Infobox montage discussion at Talk:Korean War. And recall also that HanzoHattori has a prior history of being blocked for both personal attacks and edit warring that had nothing to do with Battle of Washita River.

I am an outside observer to the disputes at The Holocaust, but I have taken the time to compile this history of HanzoHattori's recent involvements there.

[edit] History of problems at The Holocaust article

Issues that I see: edit warring, incivility, making changes without explanation (e.g., edit summaries), making massive changes all in one edit also without explanation, making substantive changes against consensus

[edit] Edit warring

On 26 July 2007, HanzoHattori made a large series of edits to The Holocaust: [43] (11 edits), [44] (restoring a mistaken reversion by another user), [45] (11 edits), [46] (88 edits divided between HanzoHattori and Hadseys (talk · contribs), of which 57 were HanzoHattori's edits). While a few additions were made, the overall effect of the edits were to remove material, reducing the article size from 133,472 bytes to 125,067 bytes. There was some conflict between HanzoHattori and Hadseys about the edits, leading to discussion on HanzoHattori's talk page, including incivility on HanzoHattori's part - "Like WHAT? Cite or go away, because I'm bored of whining."

On 27 July 2007, most of the changes were reverted by SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) at [47] with the edit summary "restored material removed without explanation" (article size 134,061 bytes). SlimVirgin asked on the article talk page what the removals were about.[48] HanzoHattori's answer discussed confusion about Hadseys' edits, [49] and SlimVirgin clarified, saying she was specifically asking about the removals HanzoHattori made.[50]. Meanwhile, HanzoHattori made a partial restoration of his previous edits [51]. SlimVirgin reverted, stating in the edit summary, "some of the changes are fine (some of the copy editing ones), but you're also removing links and refs, and it's hard to separate them; please don't keep removing material."[52]. On the talk page, HanzoHattori said, "Jesus! He says I "restored", you say I "removed"... uh, WHAT? Also, I just did the work on the version you reverted to, and then you reverted to the earlier(!). Decide already!"

Meanwhile, he went back to the article making four successive edits [53] [54] [55] [56], a combination of copyedits and removals, bringing the article down to 129,587 bytes. Only the first of these edits had an edit summary which explained why he made the edit; the second (most substantive) edit's edit summary said merely, "okay now? both of you". SlimVirgin reverted these four edits, with edit summary, "several people have asked you to stop making these changes, so please stop, and say on talk what you're trying to do" (130,461 bytes). [57] Hayden5650 reverted with edit summary "His edits are good, you seem to be assuming ownership of the article." [58] Dreadstar (talk · contribs) reverts to SlimVirgin's last version, with edit summary "There is no consensus for these changes. I suggest you talk it out on the talk page and quit edit warring over this." (134,061 bytes) [59] HanzoHattori reverted [60] but then reverted himself (restoring it to SlimVirgin's version [61] and the edit war temporarily ceased for discussion on the talk page. On HanzoHattori's talk page, Dreadstar thanked him for this effort to work constructively with other editors.

Meanwhile, on the talk page there was discussion of breaking out "child" articles to bring the main article's length down (see Talk:The Holocaust#Length), partial explanation from HanzoHattori of his edits (see Talk:The Holocaust#Auschwitz-Birkenau official total toll is 1.1 to 1-5 million, not 1.4 for Auschwitz II alone and Talk:The Holocaust#Length details), and further discussion of consensus or its lack on HanzoHattori's edits (Talk:The Holocaust#Okay so).

On 28 July 2007 (a Saturday), Dreadstar set up a sandbox for discussion of disputed content at Talk:The_Holocaust/Sandbox (original discussion now archived at Talk:The Holocaust/Sandbox/ArchiveHSB) and announced it on the article talk page (Talk:The Holocaust#Content dispute). Discussion was desultory, possibly due to the weekend. On 31 July, Dreadstar added to the sandbox discussion a "scan" of the disputed diff which presented each proposed change by HanzoHattori one by one, and gave space for comments by diputing editors. He announced this on the talk page (Talk:The Holocaust#Holocaust dispute diff) and various user talk pages. [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67]

On 1 August 2007, HanzoHattori asked in the sandbox discussion when consensus would be achieved, apparently finding the process too slow. Dreadstar asked "What do you propose as a next step?"

On 3 August 2003, HanzoHattori replied: "What now? I guess declare consensus archived (by walkover, as predicted)." On that date, with only Dreadstar and HanzoHattori having commented in the sandbox discussion on proposed changes, HanzoHattori restored his edit (a large edit that included similar removal of material as before (reducing article from 134,091 to 129,537 bytes), declaring in the edit summary that his edit was "the version agreed on by consensus". He proceeded to make 47 additional edits, most without any explanatory edit summary (reducing the article to 128,133 bytes).

Dreadstar reverted HanzoHattori's edits, with edit summary "rv disputed changes made without consensus Sandbox consensus discussion" (134,091 bytes). Hanzohattori reverted, with edit summary "oh, man,,, we had the discussion, and I'm ready to discuss anything - I just need anyone to discuss with about it (and now it' time to keep my version, for a change)" At 19:13 Dreadstar reverted with edit summary, "Undid revision 148983308 by HanzoHattori (talk) rv disputed changes made w/o consensus." Dreadstar also gave HanzoHattori a 3RR warning. At 19:17, Richardshusr (talk · contribs) put The Holocaust on full protection, edit summary "Changed protection level for "The Holocaust": Protected page to halt edit warring; please try to reach consensus on the Talk Page". The article has been under full protection since.

Talk page discussion accompanying the later edit war included HanzoHattori's announcements of his reintroduced changes (Talk:The Holocaust#New changes) and Dreadstar's annoucement that the article had been protected (Talk:The Holocaust#Article protected). Dreadstar moved the original diff discussion from the sandbox to an archive page in hopes of restarting discussion in the sandbox.

On 5 August 2007 Dreadstar attempted to elicit a response from HanzoHattori about whether he would resume edit warring if the article was unprotected, but received no direct response,[68] though HanzoHattori did "Can be at least the completely non-conteroversional edits implemented? or do i have top explain why Chelmno link indetad of Chelmno extermination camp is wrong? Geez, people." Dreadstar's suggestion that HanzoHattori respond to issues on this RfC, which was already in progress, resulted on the response "Thanks, but no thanks."

The Holocaust has been on full protection since 3 August 2007. Discussion on Talk:The Holocaust has been desultory and has stopped altogether in the Sandbox that was created to deal with the content dispute.

[edit] Attitude towards consensus
  • 09:53, 27 July 2007, "What I wrote already. Oddities removed, various things corrected, some (important) stuff actually added but the article's smaller anyway. Can we have oh-consesus now?"
  • 20:18, 27 July 2007, "So WHERE'S THE DISCUSSION? All you can do is reverting "because no consensus", and then continue blah-blah-blah (tl;dr obviously) on this and whining, not on the content, because you reverted so now you can ignore and wait it out (while whining it's "too long" after enlonging). Typical wikipedia. Or should I consider this "the consensus'." (note also incivility)
  • 20:43, 27 July 2007, "OK, major frustration time. I asked for the help to make several related articles, and got none. But when I upgrade this one existing myself, I get instantly reverted because "no consensus" (and for removing offtopic, non-important, and redunant stuff from the "too long" article, becuase I made it not "too long" enough). And when I ask for this "consensus", I get silence from the reverters (both two of them, also called "several people") instead of any discussion, just continued whining about "too long". You know what guys, screw all this - have your "too long" article including Ilse Koch, or stuff about "Spanish POWs", or (SO UNIMPORTANT) police raids on Berlin gay clubs and what not, instead of total 4 sentences and 1 main link of 200,000+ to 1.8,000,000 killed Poles or the super-short detail on Reinhard (merely ~2 million, who cares, let's instead confuse this with Endlosung in general) I dastardly added without oh-"consensus". So much better!" (note also incivility)
  • 06:08, 30 July 2007, "So, what now when there's no discussion? Reaching consensus otherwise, I guess. SV is against my changes but won't tell which exactly and why, and Hayden5650 is appeareantly supporting me after all. You?"
  • 19:49, 3 August 2007, (replying to Dreadstar's statement that "Your changes need consensus "before" they are implemented.") -- "I thought we have reached the consensus? You stopped questioning anything, I showed you no one else is joining (as predicted), and you asked what now."
  • See also Talk:The Holocaust/Sandbox and this discussion from the archived sandbox discussion and the one below it on Consensus, where Dreadstar attempts to explain the consensus to HanzoHattori.

[edit] Incivility
  • 07:57, 27 July 2007, to Hadseys (talk · contribs) - "Like WHAT? Cite or go away, because I'm bored of whining."
  • 08:37, 27 July 2007, to SlimVirgin (talk · contribs), "Jesus! He says I "restored", you say I "removed"... uh, WHAT? Also, I just did the work on the version you reverted to, and then you reverted to the earlier(!). Decide already!"
  • 09:46, 27 July 2007, to SlimVirgin, "You "agree" 126kb is too long, so you revert to 134 kb with odd random links and stuff? Wow. I'm amazed by your logic."
  • 20:11, 3 August 2007, "What is disputed? Okay, you guy may have all the homosexuals you want in the intro. Yay. I'd go and insert this NOW, but no, protected. So no yay. Anything else?"

[edit] Lack of edit summaries; huge all-encompassing edits

Here are some relevant comments from other editors involved with The Holocaust article about the need for explanation of edits (through edit summaries, etc.), making small edits one by one instead of huge edit all at once, etc.

  • SlimVirgin: 06:34, 27 July 2007, edit summary, "restored material removed without explanation"
  • SlimVirgin: 06:37, 27 July 2007, article talk page, "What's with all the removal of material?"
  • SlimVirgin: 08:07, 27 July 2007, article talk page, " meant why did you remove what you removed?"
  • SlimVirgin: 08:32, 27 July 2007, edit summary, "some of the changes are fine (some of the copy editing ones), but you're also removing links and refs, and it's hard to separate them; please don't keep removing material."
  • SlimVirgin: 09:04, 27 July 2007, edit summary, "several people have asked you to stop making these changes, so please stop, and say on talk what you're trying to do"
  • SlimVirgin: 1024, 27 July 2007, article talk page, "You're just chopping out bits randomly. It needs to be done properly."
  • Slrubenstein: 15:33, 3 August 2007, article talk page, "Why did you remove homosexuals and Jehova's Witnesses? You may explain."
  • Joel Mc: 16:42. 3 August 2007, article talk page, "I would also like to know why they are removed. Why do you make lots of small changes? It makes it harder for me to compare the changes you have made with what came before, not to mention using the revert function--but maybe that is my technical failings"
  • Dreadstar: 20:15, 3 August 2007, article talk page, "You will need to propose any changes you want to make to the article. Merely re-citing the disputed diff or any other diffs is not appropriate. The article is too long and the diffs are too massive to easily review."
  • Joel Mc: 20:30, 3 August 2007, article talk page, "Thanks, Dreadstar, for slowing this thing down. This is the second time I had to wade my way through a huge number of small edits, done seconds apart. It is not conducive to a reflective response."

[edit] My outside view on The Holocaust dispute

[edit] HanzoHattori's editing style

In putting together the above history, it seems to me that the "content dispute" other editors had with HanzoHattori's edits on The Holocaust had as much to do with HanzoHattori's style of editing as it did with content per se:

  1. HanzoHattori was making numerous numerous edits without explaining what he was doing. He almost never uses edit summaries to explain his article edits, whether at The Holocaust or elsewhere, so a lot of the time other users are confused about the reasoning behind his edits. Because he often will makes numerous edits within a very brief span of time, it makes it all the more difficult for other editors to understand the reasoning behind his edits. As Joel Mc said, "This is the second time I had to wade my way through a huge number of small edits, done seconds apart. It is not conducive to a reflective response." This is especially a problem when HanzoHattori removes a lot of content, as he did on The Holocaust.
  2. HanzoHattori mixes uncontroversial copyediting with more substantive changes that might be disputed. He sometimes makes huge edits in which he does all kinds of things all in one go, & so people who might agree with part of his changes but not with others have no choice but to revert his entire edit or to pick through the edit bit by bit -- an extremely frustrating thing to have to do. Not long I saw a an old hand give a fairly new user a great piece advice on just such a problem [69] -- "hi, I reverted your edits. Although many of your minor edits are fine they are bundled with deleting content and refs which isn't fine and introducing new content which seems wonky.... As a suggestion do the minor grammar fixes first as no one will be bothered on those. Then introduce new material, then look to deleting material. I'm sorry I reversed them all as you did some good work in there - I just couldn't separate it from the not so good edits."

It seems to me that (1) providing edit summaries to explain one's edits, (2) discussing on the talk page before rather than after making large changes, and (3) limiting the size of individual edits are just as much a matter of courtesy -- and just as important to maintaining a civil and collegiate atmosphere on a collaborative project like Wikipedia -- as refraining from personal attacks is.

[edit] Other disputants

I do want to add that I think HanzoHattori has a point about other editors not participating in the Sandbox discussion about the content dispute. He did make a good faith effort to work with other editors by (1) reverting his own revert on 27 July 2007 so that discussion proceed, and (2) with the Sandbox discussion. In my opinion, other disputants did not respond in kind. Perhaps HanzoHattori is too impatient; but it seems to me that the other disputants had just as much of an obligation as he did to take part in the mediation effort that Dreadstar had set up. I find their nonparticipation disappointing.

[edit] Suggestion: Article RfC

An article RfC might be helpful in getting The Holocaust article itself back to a protection status so editing can resume. It did the trick for us at the Washita river even without the participation of either user that we were having problems with. Article RfCs also require a lot less work to get going than a user conduct RfC. Other editors from outside our dispute were tremendously helpful.

[edit] Conclusion

I think that HanzoHattori makes extremely valuable contributions to Wikipedia on a daily basis. You only have to take a look at his edit history & a good sampling of the diffs there to see that. He's done especially valuable work on articles having to do with war crimes & atrocities. He's extraordinarily knowledgeable in that area. I do not personally wish for him to be banned from editing at Wikipedia -- far from it. He's damned good when he's on his form, too good to lose, if we can help it.

But -- he has significant issues with incivility and edit warring. And I strongly believe that this RfC needs to address it, both for the short-term goal of letting the folks at The Holocaust article get on with their business, and for the long-term goal of ensuring that editors in future don't have to continue to suffer incivility, personal attacks, and edit warring at HanzoHattori's hands. Regardless of whether our immediate problems at Battle of Washita River appear to be taken care of, we still have received no commitment from HanzoHattori that he will learn to abide by Wikipedia policies on these matters. He needs to abide by them everywhere on Wikipedia, not just at the Washita article. It's simply not optional. --Yksin 23:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Excellent analysis and presentation, I strongly endorse this summary. Dreadstar † 23:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Miskwito 00:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC) . Well-said, Yksin. And I agree with you in my disagreement with Biophys' analysis. This clearly isn't just an RfC about the Washita article; it's an RfC about HH's incivility, edit-warring, and utter lack of respect for other editors, consensus, and Wikipedia processes. These issues simply drove people involved with the Washita article to open an RfC first, rather than many other users who have had disputes with HH in the past (as the various comments on the RfC testify)
  3. Agree with Dreadstar, Yksin has done a good piece of work. I also endorse the summary. --Joel Mc 21:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Wow, not to be a ditto-head, but this is absolutely on point. Murderbike 21:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. Verklempt 22:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Macboots 19:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Sup internet? This all clearly is a serious business, however tl;dr. --HanzoHattori 20:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)