Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/DocKino

On 10 January I noticed a minor edit by a red link named User:Windofkeltia. A quick check confirmed Windofkeltia was a newby - only 91 edits. The edit by Windofkeltia consisted of adding the word from, and leaving an edit summary saying graduate isn’t transitive. See the diff. DocKino first came to my notice when I observed that he had reverted this edit, leaving an edit summary saying:

'Ricidulous. Before you edit Wikipedia again, why don’t you splurge on a decent dictionary?'

It was clear to me that DocKino’s edit summary was directed at the newby. It was insulting and gratuitous. It was in breach of Please do not bite the newcomers. See the diff

When I looked at DocKino’s Talk page I could see numerous others had left messages asking DocKino to refrain from uncivil behaviour. I also left a message for DocKino, drawing his attention to the unreasonableness of his attack on the newby. See my diff. In my message I included a broad hint as to what he might write in reply to terminate the whole affair. I wrote ''While I am contemplating what further action I might take on Windofkeltia’s behalf, you might like to let me know what you now think about your edit summary. Happy editing.''

If DocKino had lifted a finger to distance himself from the edit summary he left for the newby, there would have been no need for me to take it further. He could have written something like My edit summary was a bit strong. However, DocKino did not lift a finger to distance himself from his edit summary, other than to erase my message without comment, and without edit summary. See the diff. In the interests of making Wikipedia a safer place for newbies, I raised the matter at WP:WQA – see the diff. DocKino did not participate in the discussion at WP:WQA.

DocKino subsequently mentioned the issue at Talk:Elvis Presley. See his diff. In that post he conceded that the word Ridiculous appeared in his edit summary, but he didn’t mention the rest of the edit summary - Before you edit Wikipedia again, why don’t you splurge on a decent dictionary? He ridicules the edit by the newby, and vigorously defends his own actions.

I am now convinced that DocKino doesn’t understand the importance of civility on Wikipedia. I have recently drawn this to his attention but there is no sign he has comprehended it or intends to co-operate. Dolphin ( t ) 02:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Doc Kino's response
I do appreciate that DocKino has finally decided to participate in a discussion about his behavior, that he has finally acknowledged at least his edit summary to WindofKeltia was inappropriate, and his pledge to avoid such behavior entirely in the future. I hope that is sincere. However, at the same time, I feel it is too little, too late. His latest behavior is not an isolated incident, nor is this the first time other editors have tried to get him to change his behavior. His talk page is littered with warning messages from various editors about his edit summaries, his talk page comments, he has been brought before WQA, ANI, and let's not forget he has been blocked for personal attacks. He has had plenty of wake up calls about his problematic behavior, he has just consistently ignored them - and by ignored them, I don't just mean he went right on with uncivil behavior, he hasn't deigned to even try to address most of them, and lately would just erase them, often with snarky edit summaries as he did it. I am worried the only reason he is choosing to address this now is that there is now a long line of people endorsing the RFC and he is worried about this RFC ultimately leading to sanctions. So now he acknowledges the most recent incivility (but not his pattern of behavior), and I am sure he hopes that will satisfy the community and this will blow over. His previous pattern of behavior indicates that once that happens he will go back to his old ways. Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can simply assume insincerity, and I'm not sure what else we can reasonably expect to achieve, anyway. Let's see what happens before forming opinions. Anaxial (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Though, on 17 January, in his response on the project page, 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. This is of much importance as it shows that DocKino will continue attacking other users that are not in line with his personal opinion. Onefortyone (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I still remain unconvinced for these reasons:
 * DocKino's response focuses on the most recent incident that "precipitated" this, not the years of similar behavior preceding it.
 * DocKino's response attempts to explain his behavior in the recent event as being caused by stress from a taxing day spent editing an FA. That doesn't explain the years of similar behavior. If this were an isolated incident, we wouldn't even be here.
 * ElvisFan's view implores us to think of what stresses might be going on in DocKino's life we aren't aware of that could have made him be uncivil. I'm sorry, but wikipedia is NOT therapy. If this were just an uncharacteristic lapse on DocKino's part, I could buy that, but again, if it were uncharacteristic, we wouldn't be here. Even if we are to believe that DocKino's perennial biting style is a result of ongoing stresses he has faced over the last several years, I feel sorry for him, but again, wikipedia is NOT therapy.
 * ElvisFan's view says that he is sure after DocKino pushed "submit" on many of his outbursts, he wished he could turn back the clock. If this is true, then why, in the "precipitating" event, when more than one uninvolved editor tried to address his behavior, did he erase our attempts, usually with sarcastic edit summaries?
 * Livitup points to DocKino's 25 most recent edits being civil. I looked at DocKino's contributions pretty extensively before preparing this RFC/U. I found plenty of long strings of perfectly civil consecutive edits in his history, 25 or longer. However, uncivil behavior would return, so I don't find a short term stretch of civility particularly convincing of reform.
 * Fair enough... I just checked his last 25 because I figured that only his recent edits are relevant to evaluate his behavior since committing here to be more civil. Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 02:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as "what we can reasonably expect to achieve," if some of us don't feel that this RFC/U has resulted in an assurance that his pattern of behavior won't continue, we can take this to WP:ARBCOM. However, despite my strong reservations above, I am not ready to do that yet. I am willing to see what happens. I think this RFC/U should remain up, and after its 30 days are up we will continue to keep an eye on things, and hopefully there will not be reason to refer this to ArbCom. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this is exactly the right kind of attitude to have here. The best you can do at RFC/U is documenit a pattern of editor behavior and attempts to resolve, and if you're lucky (as in this case) the subject editor will commit to change their behavior. If things work out, all the better, but if you need to escalate things later, this is really good evidence. Good luck to all involved parties, especially DocKino. Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 02:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I can guarantee that arbcom wouldn't take this as a case. There is nowhere near enough stuff for this to rise to their level. The fact that you want to go to the drama pit is a tad disheartening. --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  21:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to attempt to make the case that DocKino's behavior is not problematic, that is your prerogative, however, you still need to do it in a civil manner, which means don't come on here simply to disparage a legitimate dispute resolution process by calling it a "drama pit" or other editors for following that process. Your "guarantee" will be taken for exactly what it is worth. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Does 141 accuse DocKino of sockpuppetry? Or suggest it?
141 writes "To my mind, DocKino is identical with DCGeist." Is this something we should attempt to investigate at part of this RfC? __meco (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the sock puppet accusation should be investigated separately for two reasons: 1. to avoid muddying the waters here, and 2. because WP:SPI is the better place to carry out such an investigation. I hope 141 won't take my saying this as dismissing his concerns, because now that he mentions his suspicions, it reminds me of a brief interaction I had with DCGeist a few years ago that was similar in tone to many of DocKino's interactions with people. Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ummmm. They are just two FA writes with the same interests. Their FAs only overlap in fairly large content areas. They only overlap on 24 articles. Everything I can see days that the socking claim is smoke and mirrors --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  21:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not really that interested in the sockpuppetry issue, as I think 141's concerns should be chalked up to mere coincidence unless more compelling evidence surfaces, however 24 articles of overlap actually appears to be quite a bit of overlap, considering that using the stalker tool I found most people who have participated in this RFC/U only have two pages of overlap on average. Moreover, many of these shared interests are ones you would not expect to go hand-in-hand. Mmyers1976 (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Closure
Since this RfC/U has ran it's 30 day's I'd like to propose the following closure. "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." Pending any major objections, I intend to close this in 48 hours from this timestamp, with said conclusion, and delist from the RfC/U list. Please respond if you have objections to this type of closure. Hasteur (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * DocKino responded to this RfC/U on 17 January. See his diff.  His response comprised two parts:


 * In the first part of DocKino’s response he wrote It is never productive to inject uncivil commentary into an edit summary, and I’ll endeavour to avoid that entirely in the future. This is an eminently sensible response, and I thank him for making it.  If DocKino had expressed this sentiment after my initial approach to him I would have considered the issue closed, and I certainly wouldn’t have raised it at WP:WQA, and as a result this RfC would not have come into existence.


 * In the second part of DocKino’s response he pointed out, correctly, that Windofkeltia's account had been created 5-1/2 years earlier. It is true that Windofkeltia registered in July 2006 but DocKino didn’t know that when he left an offensive edit summary for Windofkeltia.  At that time, all DocKino knew was that Windofkeltia was a red link.  Very few User names are red linked and almost all of them are newbies.  Whenever we see a User name in red we should all respond in a manner appropriate for dealing with newbies unless we have taken the time to investigate that User’s edit history or edit count and have determined that the User is clearly not a newby.


 * The first part of DocKino’s response was almost perfect. There is only one extra element I would like to see from him and that is an undertaking that he is willing to be accountable for what he writes and if a User communicates with him about a perceived shortcoming in his behaviour, or if he again becomes a person of interest at WP:WQA, that he will respond to that communication.


 * I have no objection to this RfC/U being closed at the time nominated by Hasteur, but I would like to see DocKino get in first with some comment about whether he is willing to be accountable for what he writes in future.  Dolphin  ( t ) 22:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As the editor who originated this RFC/U, I have no objection to its closure as proposed by Hasteur. Mmyers1976 (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)