Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Danras

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: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 09:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC).

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

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

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

User Danras has been ignoring consensus and making numerous repetitive edits which are effectively persistent revisions.

Danras has a particular fringe view-point (namely that Black Holes as understood by mainstream physics, do not exist). Unfortunately, he has decided that Wikipedia is the ideal place to promulgate his view. He repeatedly replaces canonical, mainstream content with contentious, fringe opinions (without references).
Note that we are not arguing with his physics; he is entitled to his opinion. But his ideas are very far from mainstream and are probably OR (he never quotes any references) so are, by definition, not encyclopedic. --Oscar Bravo 08:30, 24 October 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. [1]
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
  4. [4]
  5. [5]
  6. [6]

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

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

  1. WP:3RR Persistent revisions are strongly discouraged
  2. Wp:consensus
  3. WP:Resolving_disputes#Avoidance

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

(provide diffs and links)

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Black_hole#Danras_edits_and_the_three-revert_rule Pervect 07:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Black_hole#Added_Talk_Section --Oscar Bravo 08:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Black_hole#Original_Research --Oscar Bravo 08:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Pervect 07:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oscar Bravo 08:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Jpowell 09:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. O. Prytz 19:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. MOBle 04:24, 30 October 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.}

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.

It seems to me that Danras's reasoning is not actually as "far-out" as the above summary claims it to be. Black holes have always been a major sticking point in GR. I know Steven Hawkings has always been weary.

In any case I think the major problem here is not that the claims are "far out" but that there is a major lack of references being employed. My own personal view is that when something I've contributed is reverted with a call for sources then it's my job to find the sources before re-adding the content.

---J.S (t|c) 20:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Endorse. I endorse J.S' summary and Oscar Bravo's response. Regardless of the physics, if there's a challenge for sources, then either acceptable sources (per proposed WP:SOURCE) should be cited somewhere (in-line, footnote, talk page) -- or the material should be deleted. Persistence in re-adding the material under these circumstance should be considered disruptive and the contributor warned; if it persists the contributor should be blocked. --A. B. 17:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    Note that Danras has also claimed his opponents have not sourced their material in the article; if this is still so, they need to do this. --A. B. 17:40, 1 November 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.