Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Uknewthat

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: 18:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 16:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC).

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

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

User:Uknewthat has edited Global Positioning System and Hafele-Keating experiment many times to advance the position that relativistic effects are completely negligible for GPS. I have tried to reason and compromise, but the user does not seem interested in reaching consensus and all I have received in reply is personal attacks. I don't think the user has technically violated the 3RR, but most of the user's edits are simply to restore the same version.

[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. Edit warring and violating NPOV: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] Additionally, repeated removal of the equations section on Hafele-Keating experiment and replacement with POV GPS section:[26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] These edits follow a series of identical edits by various anonymous IPs, until the article was briefly semi-protected at 20:49, August 26, 2006.[60] At that point the user created an account at 13:17, August 27, 2006, most likely to evade future semi-protection.[61] The user's first main space edit at 07:27, September 4, 2006, was to remove the equations from the H-K article, less than 12 hours after removal of semi-protection.[62]
  2. Personal attacks: [63] [64] [65] [66] [67]
  3. Repeated removal of dispute banner of unresolved dispute: [68] [69] [70]
  4. Repeated removal of warnings and notices on user page. Removal of 3RR warning [71] followed by a block for 3RR and removal of the previous warning. Removal of 3RR notice and block message despite prior warning.[72]
  5. Edited under an anonymous IP while under block for disruption [73] [74] which resulted in semi-protected status applied to the GPS and Hafele-Keating experiment articles [75] [76]

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

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

  1. Wikipedia:Edit war
  2. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
  3. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
  4. Wikipedia:Three-revert rule
  5. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing
  6. Wikipedia:Sock puppetry

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

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Me (Keenan Pepper) attempting to communicate: [77]
  2. Uknewthat deleting my comment with no reply: [78]
  3. Other users try to help but Uknewthat doesn't take it seriously: Talk:Global Positioning System#Relativity changes as well as Talk:Global Positioning System#Time dilation and Talk:Hafele-Keating_experiment#GPS continued

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  • Notification of RFC [79] Removal of notification, without comment [80]
  1. Keenan Pepper
  2. Harald88 22:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Ben Standeven 21:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Justin 00:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Akradecki 21:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Pfalstad 21:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dual Freq 17:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Cardamon 08:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. mdf 19:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Arch dude 21:39, 11 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.

Here is why I have problems with how Wiki presents GPS-relativity to the public, as well as some general suggestions: 1a. Mr. Einstein Albert's theories of relativity are just theories, meaning they are not laws, so the public should not be mislead by persistently omitting quotation marks around the ever-ultramodern expressions such as "time dilation", "warped space", "worm hole", etc., or at least: 1b. Such theoretical terminology should be preceded and co-followed by disclosures like "According to Einstein's theory..." and similar, 2. There are other peoples' theories of relativity, such as the Poincaré's, which is also why one has to decide WHOSE theory of relativity one is talking about, and yes, even STATE it, 3. Wiki should not allow the use of widely disputed “arguments” (e.g., Hafele-Keating experiment; or GPS in which simple geometrical differencing renders any “relativistic corrections” unnecessary) as proofs of the Einstein's theories, precisely because those claims have been widely disputed (no doubt the Nobel committee would have given Mr. Einstein a prize for his theories had they been proven laws), 4. Acknowledge that in reality (leave magical worlds to Mr. Disney), Mr. Einstein Albert’s theories of relativity have not been proven as of yet, i.e., a century or so since they were first proposed, which decreases the chances for proving them at all. 5. Take those theories for what they are along with other (thousands upon thousands of) theories out there that make some correct predictions in some cases but then also make incorrect or no predictions in some other cases as well, 6. Learn to live with the fact that a patent clerk will remain a patent clerk no matter what the media and the rich tell you, 7. In case that you cannot live with all of the above in the real world simultaneously, then please do feel free to publish a scientific paper (in the real world, of course), in which you are going to define Time in absolute terms, where you will prove it is possible to change the size of the Time you previously described in absolute terms. An experimental observation of the quantity named Time should speed publishing of your paper tremendously.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Uknewthat 02:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view of Vonspringer

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.

{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.}

I should like to discuss the physics of relativity and GPS with Uknewthat. I believe he simply misunderstands some things. On the GPS talk page, I have left an offer for discussion and am awaiting reply. If none is forthcoming, some form of official dispute resolution will likely become necessary.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Vonspringer 08:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view of Akradecki

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.

{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.}

As a person who's reverted some of Uknewthat's additions, I'd like to note that, in addition to the above issues, this user also seems to completely ignore the little things like proper formatting and referencing. His disputable and improperly formated input is, IMHO, borderline vandalism.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Akradecki 21:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. mdf 19:42, 10 October 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.