User:Alansohn/Otto4711 uncivility


 * Note: I'm still working on this and hope I have no reason to go any further than this. Any suggest changes should be made at my talk page.

This page is documenting a continuing pattern of violations on the part of User:Otto4711. The pattern typically starts with a basic pattern of rudeness, especially in areas such as WP:CFD, where Otto believes he has ownership and takes umbrage at opinions that differ from his. This can be seen here, where Otto tries to justify an uncivil argument by insisting that "I'm not saying you don't know the policies and guidelines. I'm saying you don't understand them. Big difference".

Where other editors have demonstrated greater unwillingness to accept Otto's interpretations on issues, this can often escalate into profanity-laden personal attacks that cross any possible line of violating WP:CIVIL.

While I sincerely hope that this issue will resolve itself somehow -- for example, Otto took a brief, self-enforced break following his April 19, 2009 outburst -- this page will be used to document the continuing pattern of incivility on Otto's part, in the event that an appeal to AN/I or RfC will be need to address the problem.

Extreme incivility

 * This diff 15:47, 23 July 2009 while attempting to discuss a deletion he took issue with admin User:Jclemens - "Your piss-poor "issue closed" attitude, though, sure helps me understand why it is so many people don't bother trying to talk to deleting admins before going to DRV."


 * This diff 20:34, 20 April 2009 - "No one who works at McDonald's flipping burgers or as a telephone operator ever goes on to become a politician or otherwise famous? That's a pretty arrogant statement."


 * This diff 14:29 18 April 2009 - "The LGBT related TV episodes category has been renominated so why not shut up about it in unrelated CFDs and hash it out there if you're so incensed about it?"


 * This exchange at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_22, for which User:Ward3001 left an "only warning" on incivility here, citing the personal attack bolded below:
 * And again, the notability of the people buried in the cemetery and even the number of them is not relevant, because the notability of those buried there is in no way connected to the cemetery. Otto4711 (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And again, Otto, your opinion carries no more weight than other opinions, no matter how many times you repeat it. Believe it or not, Wikipedians are smart enough to understand what you said the first time you said it, and smart enough to know that your saying it over and over doesn't make it true. Ward3001 (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I can think of at least one Wikpidean who isn't smart enough to understand, despite the repeats. Your "argument" in favor of this category basically amounts to nuh uh, which is about the level of a four year-old. Shock the world, offer up some substantial support of your opinion. Otto4711 (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're skating on thin ice, Otto. Read WP:NPA. Consider this a warning. Ward3001 (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oooh, a warning. If I were wearing boots, I'd be shaking in them. Otto4711 (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I responded on your Talk page. Please leave any future personal comments on user talk pages rather than this discussion page. Ward3001 (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This diff, where Otto insists that "Vague? In what universe? And, um, cite that the supposed 'medical aspect' of these 'disasters' (and, er, what is the objective definition of 'medical disaster' again? Oh that's right, there isn't one) is either 'encyclopedic' or 'worth categorizing'? This little routine of yours, bringing up a couple of articles that you claim don't have other appropriate categories and then when other categories are found for them bringing up others, is getting very tiresome." 13:57, 15 May 2009


 * "I am not assuming bad faith on your part. I am stating flat out that you made a mistake." regarding closing of an ANI he felt should have been kept open. here


 * "It's good to see you branching out. Instead of mischaracterizing arguments to guidelines as 'I hate it' you switched to 'is not'. It's still a complete mischaracterization of the arguments but at least it's variety." here

Claims of ignorance
A frequent theme is a repeated accusation that those who disagree with him have some fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. No documentation is provided to support the claim, but the accusation is made regardless:
 * This diff "Except of course that without independent reliable sources the items on this list are not notable, something that you are either unable to understand or that you understand but in your zeal to keep everything you choose to ignore"
 * This diff "Talk about having no grasp of basic understanding of WP policies and guidelines. WP:CLN in no way obviates [[WP:NOT}] and a collection of every beverage that exists within every fictional setting that lacks reliable sources that discuss the concept of fictional beverages is trivial garbage."

Profanity

 * Requests for adminship/Otto4711 provides multiple examples of profanity

Previous incidents

 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive327 Article ownership issues
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive281 - August 2007 Incivility
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive355 - January 2008 incivility in AfD nominations. Of the many examples here, this response is typical.