Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colignatus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, 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: 05:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 07:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC).

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

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

Colignatus is editing articles related to voting systems to express his original research and his opinions, and retaliates against editors who revert or question his contributions with personal attacks and personal threats.

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

[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.}

Statement by Rspeer

Colignatus has been engaging in personal attacks againts me, Rspeer, ever since I questioned the notability[1] of Colignatus' voting system, called Borda fixed point, on Talk:Borda fixed point. In addition, he has repeatedly demanded me to "provide the name and e-mail address of your MIT professor" [2], attempting to use the real-world identity I provide on my user page against me. After I told him that I doubt any of my professors would care, he has asked instead for my dean. He has not withdrawn this threat, saying that he is right now working on a message to some dean or professor at MIT. Although I am sure this will amount to nothing, this is a personal threat in an attempt to chill on-Wikipedia discussion.

Colignatus has made no attempt to learn Wikipedia policies; when I have brought them up on his talk page, he responded "Don't throw links at me".

I requested mediation as a response to his original threatening message, but another user said that it was too soon for mediation and I shouldn't bite the newbies. Colignatus rejected the mediation. I backed off a bit, conceding that mediation was probably not appropriate, and tried to take a break from the issue. Colignatus claimed this as a victory and made more personal attacks against me as well as an ultimatum [3], so I did not take that break.

After many warnings on his talk page, Colignatus has persisted in his threats, claiming that they are not threats because I should be happy to discuss this with a professor [4]. I am certain that no discussion will occur, because he will not reach anyone at MIT who cares about what happens on Wikipedia, but I still find the attempt to interfere in my academic life unacceptable. I consulted other admins on the issue -- Stifle and Sean Black responded -- and they decided that Colignatus should not be blocked yet. Stifle encouraged me to start an RfC instead.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Joseph Lorenzo Hall

A few of us have attempted to intervene in this matter and try to work things out. I interjected at two points: one to explain why mediation was a good thing and then again to try and explain that contacting someone outside of Wikipedia was inappropriate and would be ineffective [5] [6]. At first I just thought this is case of a new wikipedia community member who has found the vast myriad of rules to be completely obscure. However, when explained certain rules, Colignatus seemed only interested in saving face in the dispute and getting at Rspeer. -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall 16:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, Colignatus has used (in the past 24-36 hours) the excuse that he needs a "time out" to author emails to Rspeer's "professor" and "dean" at MIT in order to revert substantive comments on this dispute [7]. Also, Colignatus has also threatened to write my former dean, Hal Varian [8]. -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall 16:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I can now confirm that Colignatus has sent the text of the email that he has threatened to send. I received this email along with an elaborate nine-page appendix detailing his position on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 01:47:55 GMT. This correspondence was also sent to the president of MIT, Professor Susan Hockfield, as well as the current Dean, AnnaLee Saxenian, of my school, the UC Berkeley School of Information. I have considered posting the appendix which makes Colignatus' argument on this page below in the Response area; I will refrain from doing so until Colignatus has had a chance to exercise his right to request that an admin post it per Stifle's comment below. I've encouraged my Dean to not to respond. I'm quite upset that Colignatus actually went out of his way to bother one of the busiest people that I work with on a daily basis. (Moments later: the text of his appendix has now been added to his Talk page [9].) -- Joebeone (Talk) 02:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Bunchofgrapes

I made an attempt to enter into discussion with Colignatus about the intention behind his stated goal of contacting RSpeer's professors or dean, pointing out that such action appeared to be a threat and ran contrary to Wikipedia culture. This was met with this response (Colignatus was not signed in when he made it, but returned under his account to re-sign it [10]). His response was "What I try to accomplish: see that email. Don't judge before you read it. And if culture is baked in stone, would you really like that ? Did you ever hear about the world wide web so that different cultures meet ?" I found this to be a crypyic response, since it was unclear how I would ever see an email that Colignatus was to write to RSpeer's academic superiors. Anyway, it didn't matter what the content of such a letter might be; I think it is clear despite Colignatus' denials that the letter itself constitutes a threat and that the writing of such a letter should play no part in settling the related content disputes that precipitated all this. If Colignatus cannot or will not understand this, there will come a point where he cannot or will not be welcomed as a Wikipedia editor. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Having now seen a draft of the letter I can only say it appears RSpeer was right all along ; we didn't block him soon enough. I now unhesitatingly endorse Sean Black's indefinite block. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[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.)

  1. Colignatus' original response, while not logged in
    • Attack: "Give me a reasoned argument instead of your present bias and insult."
    • Attack: "I don't think that you have the balanced mind to come up with a serious reaction, and you are likely to tell people biased and insulting stuff."
    • Admission of original research: "It is a fallacy that this method should have an impact on students of voting via a citation index or so, before it can be listed in wikipedia for people to see what it is. It is a new method that I had an idea about in 1990, formalised it in 2001, and that has been circulating a bit."
    • Threat: "Please give me the name and email address of your professor at MIT. I want him/her to see this."
  2. [11]
    • Threat: "If haven't given me in the next 24 hours the name and email address of your professor at MIT, I will approach the dean there."
    • Refusal to read Wikipedia policies: "Don't throw links at me, such as "civil", as if I were a barbarian. My language has always been polite."
    • Personal attack: "Did you apoligize for being too rash and self-assuming ? No."
  3. [12]
    • Threat: "You still have about 19 hours before I contact the dean. I presume I can write an email text so that he or she will take notice. And you haven't explained why you consider this a threat. If the dean reacts as I hope, you will benefit from it."
    • Threat to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point: "So, you hold that this voting system page is based about notability ONLY, and that logic and reasoning are not important ? In that case, I can propose to delete this page."
  4. Personal attack: "This is a false accusation, worthy of Rspeer."
  5. Personal attack: "Having lost confidence on Rspeer, my position is that it is useless to talk with him. The saying is: if you teach a monkey to climb, you will get a coconut on your head."
  6. Continued threat: "Please be aware that I will be busy now writing the emails to the professors, so give me some time off on this convoluted reasoning of these students."
  7. Threat to contact Joseph's former dean: "I noticed that you are at SIMS, so now I have to write to Hal Varian, if he's still there. Why don't you behave decently, it would have saved us all a great deal ?"
  8. Sent Joebeone (Joseph) an email that Colignatus claims he will send to Joebeone's former dean: "Dear professors Hockfield and Varian, I have a problem on the integrity of science with two of your students, ..."

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:NPA, including its policy on threats
  2. WP:CIVIL
  3. WP:NOR
  4. WP:AUTO

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

(provide diffs and links)

  1. My request for mediation, which Colignatus rejected
  2. Warning on Colignatus' talk page

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Joseph Lorenzo Hall 16:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Stifle 00:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Just zis Guy you know? 20:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. --FloNight talk 04:36, 15 March 2006 (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.}

Comment: As Colignatus is currently indefinitely blocked, he should email me or some other admin with text he wishes to add, if desired. Stifle 00:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Colignatus emailed me the following:

On the one hand: I dislike to get involved in this, not only since I have to familiarize me first with what this procedure involves, but also since the above is a biased report and trying to restore this report into a balanced account will take a lot of time. In my view it would have been proper that these students first had the desired discussion with their professors, before they created this page. It is also curious that, while I had asked for a time out to write the letter to the professors, there suddenly is this 48 hour limit with a block after say 10 hours. Please note that I gave Rob Speer 24 hours to merely provide the name and email address of his professor, which is much simpler to do than replying to the above biased report. So, on this hand, I would tend to wait it all out, let the professors talk to their students, so that they see the point, and can withdraw all this. (It would have been wiser for Joe Hall not to suggest to his professor to disregard the case, but leave the decision to her.)

On the other hand: I had intended to join wikipedia and I realize that various people are considering the situation, so that there is a lot of work involved for more people. It may also be a good learning experience for wikipedia that talking to your professor is not a threat and that when a scientist invokes the integrity of science clause then you shouldn't reply with a block.

In balance: allow me the next week, say till Monday March 20th, to state a reply. I really am busy, probably more so than what Joe Hall suggests about his professor AnnaLee Saxenian, and thus I can't make it earlier.

Given this extra work involved: I'll also ask Rob Speer to start saving $300 and Joe Hall to start saving $150, in order to be able to pay me this symbolic repayment when all this is over.

User:Colignatus

(Colignatus emailed the following and asked that it be inserted after his former response. -- Joebeone (Talk) 22:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Thomas Colignatus added on March 20 2006:

My discussion of the situation and my comments on above biased report by the students can be found at http://www.dataweb.nl/~cool/Thomas/English/Science/Letters/2006-03-20-Comments-RfC.pdf

Please note that this PDF does not fall under the GNU licence.

That PDF also contains my letter to MIT and SIMS, and the reply of the Chancellor of MIT. I did not get a reply from SIMS (yet).

By taking up my time in a disproportional amount, I ask the students a small symbolic repayment, $300 from Rob Speer and $150 from Joseph Lorenzo Hall, at my bank account: Postbank giro 3736767, Arnhem, Holland (Swift account ING.B.NL.2A 3736767), putting your order to the name of Thomas Cool, Scheveningen, Holland.

User:Colignatus

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

[edit] Outside view by Mangojuice

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.

Rspeer should be more careful in dealing with newbies, while being gentle in educating them about wikipedia culture, especially as an admin.

Colignatus has violated a wide range of wikipedia policies of which he was apparently unaware. However, it is impossible to escape the conclusion that he meant to contact rspeer's professor or dean in order to cause rspeer to be disciplined or at least embarassed in his academic life, therefore implying that he will do so is a threat and actually doing so is harassment. Furthermore, Colignatus cannot deny that he made disparaging comments about rspeer: these were personal attacks whether Colignatus feels they were founded in observation or not. Ignorance of these policies is no excuse: threats, harassment, and personal attacks are unacceptable in any community, not just on Wikipedia. Until Colignatus at least apologizes for these infractions and agrees to attempt to follow wikipedia guidelines and rules, he can have no place here.

The content dispute should be solveable by mediation.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Mangojuice 19:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. -- Joebeone (Talk) 21:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. --FloNight talk 04:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC) (hope it can be solved with mediation)
  5. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 10:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Stifle 01:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Ive had to deal with the user in question as well Benon 08:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. JoshuaZ 22:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC) Contacting someone's dean is harassment of the most extreme and vile sort. Furthermore, the above diffs indicate that the user has basically refused to read Wikipedia policy. This is completely unacceptable. JoshuaZ 22:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Elkman - (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Refusal to apprise yourself of the rules isn't an excuse for ignorance of them. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 06:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Effectively closed

Colignatus has been banned by the community, so this RFC is effectively moot at this point. It has been delisted. Stifle (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2006 (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.