Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DocKino

''Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.''

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.''

DocKino has been asked repeatedly by many different users to avoid uncivil edit summaries and talk page comments, but his behavior has persisted. Here are some examples from before his August 2009 block.

Like everyone else on the project, I'm a volunteer trying to make a positive impact on the place, and like everyone else on this project (including you), I'm not perfect. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 05:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Two copyeditors saw no problems with the article. I probably would have more eager to help implement the changes you requested sooner if you weren't as rude and uncooperative as you were. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC))


 * This is what I was talking about. By treating others this way, you make them want to talk to you even less. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

After his August 2009 block for making personal attacks expired, he went right back to his old pattern of behavior:

I am formally requesting that you retract those comments and strike them on the talk page. I don't appreciate being insulted and it's not appropriate for those uncivil remarks to stand, especially on the talk page for an article that I have invested many hours to help improve. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you see my reply to your post on my talk page? I try to keep discussions in one place and so I replied there rather than here. The summary:
 * I did not intend the edit conflict message the way you took it.
 * I would still like you to retract/strike-out the comments on Talk:The Beatles.
 * If you are not going to retract your comment, please say so. Given it's been more than a day since I made my request, I suspect I have your answer. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for striking the comments on The Beatles talk page. I trust you have seen that PL290 provided his point of view on our dispute. He interpreted my initial edit conflict message similar to the way you did, and given that, it's clear I need to try harder to avoid making comments that can be interpreted as criticism. I sincerely hope that we can work productively together in the future without those interactions being tainted by this episode. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you aware that, in some cases, your attitude towards historical facts and well-sourced contributions by other users is somewhat questionable, DocKino? Not to mention your rather condescending behavior towards me because I have a more critical view than other Wikipedians. (I do not think that this is fully in line with Wikipedia policies.) However, in general, I am very satisfied with your edits, as they actually contribute to the improvement of the Elvis article. Onefortyone (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you aware you can revert a user's attempt to improve the project without being insulting ? Gnevin (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Sex Pistols. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. You've obviously done a lot of good work on the article - no need to be rude to another editor, even if they are wrong. Anaxial (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have previously reprimanded your disrespectful behavior towards another user on Talk:Elvis Presley, specifically in my analysis of one thread on that discussion page (most easily accessible in the section named "This talk page is poisoned" here).


 * In a post you made today you write "Since Meco and The Troll...sorry, the Troll...found each other here on "Toilet Talk"..." I contend that this type of language goes beyond mere flippancy and I find you are in clear violation of WP:WIKIQUETTE, specifically WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. If you continue to resort to name-calling and making snide remarks instead of finding appropriate venues to vent your frustrations or constructively address the underlying conflicts I will file a report against you at WP:RFC/USER. __meco (talk) 07:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Radiopathy did you a favour removing your comment - I would have let it stand for others to see that your tone has become totally inappropriate. If you can’t make your point without insults, then you have lost the argument. You’re taking this personally, and making it personal - you need to cool off. Come back to this in a couple of days and let others have their say.--Patthedog (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In regards to this, among others, stop your insults now or you will go to WP:AN/I.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•   15:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you read the policy on personal attacks? Posts like this, about other editors, are not on here. Rather than stirring the outcome you want, they'll only make getting what you want more of a slog, because some editors will understandably want to have nothing to do with you. Since this is an opening editing project, like it or not, one must mostly find ways to get along with other editors. Comment only on sources and how to echo them in the text, not other editors. Likewise MoS/spelling woes, you can talk about those, cite sources and so on, but don't throw in name calling. If this carries on, some admin at some time will wind up blocking you to shield other volunteer editors from your taunts. The personal attack policy has aught to do with whether or not your editorial outlook on something like, say, spelling, is supported by sources on the topic, on English spellings, by en.WP policy or other editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please don't make wise cracks in edit summaries. There's a way to explain things to people nicely. Thanks. --John of Lancaster (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, I do not appreciate all of your comments directed at me on Talk:Punk rock. I am not stupid, despite what you think, I do know what I am doing. I have been trying to stay civil and not start a huge argument (it's very hard to), but I feel that I should say something to you about it. I find your comments (and you) very offensive. I may not have as much experience on Wikipedia as you, but at least I am nice to people. Now look, I do not want to argue, I actually would like to be friends with you, but I am not going to put up with you insulting me. I am not a brand new member of Wikipedia (I joined in January), though as far as I can tell, I am still considered one, so maybe you should read Please do not bite the newcomers. And by the way, you will be happy to know (I am sure all of your dreams will have came true), I am done editing the punk rock article, I'm very tired of dealing with people like you and DCGeist who keep insulting me (especially you, DocKino). And I might even stop editing Wikipedia entirely. --Blaguymonkey (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

More recently, DocKino has continued to be rude and offensive in edit summaries. Following this edit:, Dolphin51 posted this request for civility on DocKino ‘s talk page:. Dolphin51 was frustrated that DocKino deleted the request without comment, so he posted a WP:WQA about the situation, and informed DocKino on his talk page. DocKino did not respond. I thought DocKino deserved one more chance before making this a WQA issue, so I posted my own request for civility:, and hoped that DocKino would heed this request. He deleted the request with the edit summary of “Mmm-hmm,” but I decided to keep with WP:AGF and follow the assumption that his deletion of the message was acknowledgement of it. I had hoped that would be the end of it, but instead, DocKino decided to go on the Elvis Presley article talk page and address our requests while defending his uncivil edit summary: Moreover, he continues to be sarcastic in his edit summaries and talk page comments:

Fourteen different editors have noticed that DocKino’s edit summaries and talk page comments are rude, insulting, and uncivil, and have asked him to edit more civilly, and he has even been blocked for personal attacks, and none of this has stopped his uncivil behavior or led him to acknowledge that he should be more civil.

Desired outcome
That DocKino refrain entirely from any insulting, biting, sarcastic, or "witty" edit summaries. His summaries should be neutral "just the facts, ma'am" information and tone, and if he is incapable of keeping the sarcasm or insult out, he should leave them blank.

That DockKino refrain from personal attacks in talk pages.

Description
{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. Editors writing this section should not normally add additional views below.}

See above

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.)


 * 1) See above
 * 2) Diff. Discussed by me on the Talk page. Dolphin  ( t ) 21:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) In this comment DocKino called me a "deeply mentally disturbed person" who made a "mad, pathetic edit", though it was well sourced. For further examples, see
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7) Though, on 17 January, in his response below, DocKino promised to avoid uncivil commentaries entirely in the future, twenty-one hours later he has continued to attack me on the Elvis talk page. See this comment. Onefortyone (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) DocKino tells me to "learn how to read" here, after i complained about his unconstructive talk page replies. Pass a Method   talk  02:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) This edit of 24 January clearly shows that DocKino is still attacking me on the Elvis talk page. Onefortyone (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) DocKino now goes so far as to remove critical comments by other users from the Elvis talk page. See . Onefortyone (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Applicable policies and guidelines
{List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:CIVIL
 * WP:EDIT

Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(Provide diffs of the comments. As with anywhere else on this RfC/U, 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.)

Attempts by certifier Mmyers1976

 * 

Other attempts

 * . Use of wikiquette.
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * See other attempts listed above, under Statement of the dispute

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Dolphin ( t ) 02:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * BLAguyMONKEY! (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * meco (talk) 10:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Anaxial (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * John of Lancaster (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Pass a Method  talk  02:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * I strongly agree with Mmyers1976 and Dolphin's opinion concerning the behavior of DocKino. This Wikipedian uses the same strategy as my old opponent Ted Wilkes alias multiple hardbanned User:DW did in the past over and over again: personal attacks (accusing me of outright fabrication and insanity, calling me buddy, a liar or troll etc.), deliberately claiming things that are not true, and removing well-sourced content he does not like. See also the current discussion on Talk:Elvis Presley. More important, however, are DocKino's frequent personal attacks against me. See         . In like manner, in an earlier FA discussion DCGeist has called some of my critical remarks about the Elvis article, "dross", although these remarks were supported by another user's comment. See . To my mind, DocKino is identical with DCGeist. Both users are situated in New York City, both are film experts and interested in the B-movie, Sex Pistols and The Beatles articles. Their editing styles/methods are similar. See  and,  and ,  and ). They frequently revert well-sourced contributions by other users, thereby avoiding the 3RR. Furthermore, their edit histories reveal that they must have the same sleeping time. Interestingly, as a Wikipedian not formerly involved both in contributions to, and content disputes concerning, the Elvis Presley article before DocKino began his activities as a copy editor there two years ago, DCGeist has demonstrated an all too specific knowledge of Elvis-related details, as it could only be expected from DocKino. See . More problematic is that DocKino and DCGeist cooperated in achieving FA statuses arguing on the related discussion pages against other users as if they were two different persons. Onefortyone (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your concerns regarding DCGeist should go to WP:SPI Nobody Ent 14:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Response
''This section is reserved for the use of the user whose conduct is disputed. Users writing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section, and the person writing this section should not write a view below. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but no one except the editor(s) named in the dispute may change the summary here.''

The event that precipitated this was an edit summary I composed in response to an edit by User:Windofkeltia to Elvis Presley. My edit summary was intemperate and inappropriate. It came at the end of a long, taxing day overseeing the article while it was featured on our main page, so my nerves were particularly frayed. That's by way of some explanation, not an excuse. It is never productive to inject uncivil commentary into an edit summary, and I'll endeavor to avoid that entirely in the future.

I would observe that Dolphin51 has erroneously, and repeatedly, referred to Windofkeltia as a "newby." In fact, Windofkeltia has been a registered user since July 2006. While Windofkeltia has made fewer than 100 edits in the succeeding 5-1/2 years, neither in objective fact nor in mode of expression can this editor be considered a "newby." I do take seriously our responsibility to newbies, as I hope this recent thread demonstrates: Talk:The_Beatles.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) DocKino (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) ElvisFan1981 (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  23:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Views
''This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.''

I have been asked to endorse comment at this RFC on the basis that my name is mentioned above. I have to say that in the past I have had similar civility issues with DocKino; at the same time, I have had very productive, intelligent discussions leading to consensus with this editor. I think it's a shame that someone who is quite intelligent and persuasive need ever resort to schoolyard badgering. We'd all make better use of out time here if the focus could stay on the issues at hand and not stray into incivility.; people will resist an otherwise reasonable argument when put on the defensive.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  23:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Likewise, I too have been invited to comment. I agree with the comments made above by Radiopathy. I think DocKino is a potentially outstanding editor, but can appreciate why some might be a little guarded, as he can bite! Overall though, doing a good job.--Patthedog (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by ElvisFan1981
''This is the first time I've taken part in one of these, so if this is the wrong section then I apologise in advance and request that an editor with a better understanding of how these work move my comments to the appropriate section. Thank you.''

Over the last 12/18 months I have gotten used to seeing DocKino’s name on the Elvis Presley article. In fact, without DocKino’s input I don’t know if the Elvis Presley article would be a featured article today. Although I am not as familiar with DocKino’s other edits around Wikipedia, I do find that he is an excellent editor who is more than willing to work hard to research the subjects he is currently working on.

Each of us have a life to live outside of Wikipedia, and neither of us are truly aware of the difficulties other Wikipedians face on a daily basis. If personal problems are affecting a person, even though they may not fully realise it themselves, then it’s understandable that those problems may affect ones ability to restrain certain thoughts and emotions when editing on Wikipedia. Couple that with the editors on Wikipedia who push each of us to our limits, and occasionally that pressure can result in us writing a few words or lines that, with hindsight, are not acceptable. However, that does not make any of us a bad person. Even spending a day editing on Wikipedia can lead to our emotions and stress levels being raised. DocKino has admitted that these pressures are not an excuse, they are merely an explanation. I think it’s a perfectly good explanation and one that most of us can relate to from our time at Wikipedia.

I have always found DocKino to be a pleasant, professional, intelligent and skilled editor. Even when faced with continuous provocation from certain other editors, DocKino is, for the most part, professional, patient, and polite. There are occasions when, after having been involved in a particularly heated debate on a talk page, DocKino has responded with terms, accusations, or sarcastic comments that could be seen as personal attacks. However, I personally have never looked upon these as personal attacks. To me they are just examples of a human being allowing the stresses of continuous debate get the better of them for a split second. We must remember that we are all human, even though we are able to hide behind a name on a computer screen, and we are all capable of letting our emotions get the better of us. Unfortunately, after we hit the “Submit” button on Wikipeida, we can never take those words back as they are forever recorded. I’m sure DocKino has looked at several of his previous outbursts after the event and wished he could turn back the clock.

I believe that DocKino is sorry for these outbursts, and that he is sincere when he says he will refrain from doing them in future. I would hate to think that an editor as skilled as DocKino could possibly face a ban or be put off editing Wikipedia because of some mistakes he had made in a moment of despair. I think DocKino is an editor that Wikipedia cannot afford to lose.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) ElvisFan1981 (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) we have locked horns more then once but I agree with this. --Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  23:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by Livitup
I think it is clear from the number of people who endorsed the original summary by Mmyers1976 that there have been editors who take offense at DocKino's tone in edit summaries and talk page discussions. I think that it is also obvious that DocKino has realized the gravity of the situation and has accepted that he should be less WP:BITEy in discussions. Just looking over their last 25 edits, DocKino has been the model of civility, and even reacted in a civil manner to a mildly uncivil attack by another editor.

I would suggest chalking this up to lessons learned, and move on with life. If DocKino's behavior slips in the future and they return to less civil discourse, this RFC/U will show that we've been down this road before and the more "agressive" dispute resolution processes can be invoked to levy some binding consequences.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)  Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 01:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by Tom Reedy
Since I'm probably the person referred to by Livitup as the editor who made "a mildly uncivil attack", I'd like to share my perspective.

I made what I thought was a useful edit on the Elvis article and was reverted by DocKino on the grounds that I was "overlinking". I left a note on his talk page (which I noticed was quite full of complaints about his actions) and a discussion ensued on his talk page and mine. I also commented on the article's talkpage (which I also noted was full of complaints about his behavior) about what I perceived to be the main problem, which seems to me to be his attitude of ownership of the articles he edits, which he took as a personal attack (I've been accused of the same thing myself in disputes with editors who evidently believe that Wikipedia is some type of free speech pulpit).

During my exchange with him and looking over his interactions with other editors, I see that he displays some of the traits of civil POV editors, with the exception that he does not push a fringe belief (unless you count his insistence on leaving out any material critical of Elvis Presley). He is a good editor—maybe even a great one by Wikipedia standards—and his incivility seems to me minor (I didn't seen any serious issues such as outing or harassment), although it is certainly uncalled for. In short, I see more of a problem with his insistence on approving every edit and edit-warring than I do with his incivility. While incivility does drive editors away, the use of tendentious editing strategies—even in the defense of good edits—is more of a long-term concern to me than editors getting their feelings hurt by snide remarks. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by Joefromrandb
I've been on the receiving end of some of DocKino's nastiness at Talk:Elvis Presley. It's really no big deal. Whatever happened to "sticks and stones"? DocKino is a hell of an editor and Wikipedia as a whole is better for his being here. Some incivility here and there is truly minor in light of the myriad articles he has improved. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by SMcCandlish
WP:CIVIL, much less WP:NPA, does not require servile niceness, nor does it imply any reluctance to express honest criticism of disruptive editing behavior; WP:SPADE is an essay that well addresses this. Not everyone on Wikpiedia who is a productive editor here is always smiles and sweetness, and there is room here for the Andy Rooneys as well as the Pollyannas. This is especially true the more immediatist an editor is, and the more time they spending correcting errors, finding more and better sources, reverting POV-pushing, and otherwise improving articles. No one has some magical natural right to be free from criticism of unhelpful edits like removing periods (full stops) from sentences or whatever. No one has a right to never be offended that they're being criticized, especially when they've gone out of their way to piss people off; we own and are responsible for our own emotions. I, too, do not suffer fools lightly, and don't find anything genuinely incivil about sarcastically wondering out loud if people doing things like that fully understand grammar rules (it's also a cultural thing - Americans and Canadians, for example, are generally more apt than the British and the Irish to interpret sarcasm as hostile). There are many, many editors of WP (fortunately mostly not the regulars) who understand grammar rules, so it's not an idle concern or an out-of-the-blue comment.

As another example, resisting the alarming edits of someone with a blatant conflict of interest (a forthcoming book about Elvis) trying to editwar into the Elvis article some redundant prurience in violation of WP:UNDUE, is praiseworthy, even if the tone should have been a bit more moderate. We need not fewer editors sticking up for WP:NPOV, especially in bios. Furthermore, WP:BITE only applies to noobs. Short of NPA and CIVIL breaches, regulars often need to get nipped at a bit when they do goofball things. Trout exists for a reason, and various attempts to TfD it have failed because people know it serves a purpose.

DocKino has already conceded "It is never productive to inject uncivil commentary into an edit summary, and I'll endeavor to avoid that entirely in the future." As LivitUp suggests, this clearly indicates "lesson learned". Finally, Tom Reedy's point that stopping tendentious crap is more important than protecting the feelings of the tendentious is also important and becomes more and more so as Wikipedia's influence and people's reliance on it (and, consequently, some people's interest in bending it to reflect their own narrow views) grow. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 00:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Reminder to use the talk page for 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.

Summary
DocKino has acknowledged that editing Wikipedia with frustration and anger is not conductive to a collaborative editing environment and will endeavor to refrain from said commentary in the future. Hasteur (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)