Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rod Ball

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: 14:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 12:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC).

---

• Rod Ball (talk • contribs • logs)

---

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

Contents 1 Statement of the dispute 1.1 Description 1.2 Evidence of disputed behavior 1.3 Applicable policies and guidelines 1.4 Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute 1.5 Users certifying the basis for this dispute 1.6 Other users who endorse this summary 2 Response 3 Outside views 3.1 Outside view of JDoolin 3.2 Outside view of JoshuaZ 3.3 Outside view of Chris Hillman 3.4 Outside view of User:Vpoko 3.5 Outside view of Michael C. Price 3.6 Outside view of User:Pervect 4 Discussion

[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

{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.}

Rod Ball (talk · contribs) almost exclusively edits the article Bell's spaceship paradox. He states that [he has] deeply researched this topic and know and understand it better than the four of you [1]. Other editors, including the certifiers of this RfC are of the opionion, that Rod Ball doesn't have contact with textbook level special relativity and, assuming good faith, has simply painted himself into a corner, defending his particular POV.

He is reasonable civil (this has somewhat detoriated since he have seen that no one supports his POV) and following policy at least superficially, but he he is definitively exhausting the patience of the other editors at this article and blocks further progress.

[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.)

Exhausting the patience of other editors isn't done with single edits and so it is hard to pinpoint the problem to single diffs. Contrary to the general advice I suggest looking into the article talk page Talk:Bell's spaceship paradox as a whole, including the archives, to see that the discussion exceeds everey reasonable limit.

It's not a talk page only problem, as -- after some time discussing only -- Rod started put his POV into the article and tries to revert (respecting 3RR, AFAIK) the reverts of the other editors.

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

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

In a limited sense, it's about WP:NOR, WP:RS and WP:NPOV

But the core problem, is exhausting the patience of physicist editors by failing to acknowledge the results of textbook level special relativity.

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

(provide diffs and links)

1. User:Pjacobi trying to explain the physics on his user talk page: User_talk:Rod_Ball#Rigid_rods (he stopped responding)
2. The latest of a string of attempts to settle the issue on the user talk page, mostly done by User:Ems57fcva, with some contributions by User:Harald88 and User:Pjacobi, see under Talk:Bell's spaceship paradox#Dishonest and Talk:Bell's spaceship paradox#Time dilation and GR
3. User:Pjacobi suggesting to Rod to take a pause from this specific article [2] and Rod's answer [3].

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Pjacobi 15:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
2. EMS | Talk 00:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Harald88 17:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

1. Pervect 02:04, 29 September 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.

In reply to JoshuaZ, I note that the general conduct of discussion on the talk page (which is what the RfC is about) is not commented on, but only a single phrase from my UserTalk page. I do not consider the expression used is "unacceptable" in that context, ie. away from the article/talk page in a more personal area for private discussion of conflictual issues that had arisen. If you browse the article talk page I think you'll find I have argued reasonably and sincerely (or at least no less reasonably than my opponents). I did not make any claim that I could "edit how I choose" and indeed, if you consult the article/history you'll find I've been quite conservative and carefully sourced anything I added.

I don't understand why you say there is "almost no sourcing for the article". There are seven directly relevant references (not including Nicolic which is on another topic) and two external links. Three of the references and one of the links were added by myself . Part of the difficulty in the earlier archived article talk pages was that the 3 or 4 people vehemently disagreeing with me had not even consulted the fairly limited literature on the topic, yet felt they had a duty to try and brow-beat anyone like myself who sourced contrary expert opinion, even to the extent of dismissing any such as wrong therefore to be excluded from consideration.

• More importantly, JoshuaZ, I don't know how those things "came to your attention" but you have certainly been badly misinformed. Quite the opposite is the case, as anyone can check by consulting the article edit history. Almost half the citations at Bell Spaceship were introduced by myself ( 2nd. Dewan, JE Romain, Hsu and Suzuki & Austin Gleeson ). I am currently trying to stop EMS & Pjacobi from deleting two of them (specifically on Bell's Problem in detail ). I have never put any personal OR in the article. Remember that the talk page is just that, and not subject to the same strictures as the article itself.Rod Ball 19:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

As for ChrisH's hysterical outburst I can only point out that I've never been near "Born Coordinates" or "Rindler Coordinates", only tried to edit "Ehrenfest Paradox" after he'd already left Wiki, and only removed a few insulting remarks he made about physicists with counter-opinions in his "Bell Spaceship" before he left. Thus even his opening remarks reveal the tissue of fabrication of which he is capable. Anyone who is interested in the truth of this conflict should examine the talk page archives & article edit history at Bell's Spaceship Paradox" and not rely on the unreliable wild claims of ChrisH. Rod Ball 19:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and since ChrisH's attack is so vituperative I ought to include his talk page entry of 29 April on Bell's spaceship paradox which reads exactly as follows: [my bold characters]

From skimming the above, it seems that Rod may have failed to take account of the fact that each bit of matter in the the string will eventually have to accelerate if there is to be any hope of avoiding breaking the string. Since only the endpoints of the string are assumed to be attached to an object equipped with propulsion devices such as rocket engines, it would seem that tension in the string is eventually unavoidable if the string is not to break. Since string cannot easily be pushed, it seems that in order to (eventually) get each bit of matter in the string to accelerate, the string must be pulled by the leading spaceship. Thus, it would seem that a wave of tension must be initiated at the event at which the leading spaceship begins to accelerate, and this must travel down the string, either taking up slack (which may be hard to model) if the trailing spaceship has already begun to acclerate by the time this tension wave reaches it, or by starting to pull on the trailing spaceship when it reaches it. Indeed, it seems that the trailing spaceship only complicates the scenario unneccessarily. Furthermore, the string is assumed to be "very flimsy", but apparently the leading spaceship is assumed to eventually be accelerating rapidly. (Otherwise, it is not clear that we are talking about a thought experiment dealing with relativistic physics.) It seems to me that these assumptions are likely to make it impossible to avoid breaking the string. The only question is when and where it breaks. And the lesson seems to be that this breakage has more to do with self-contradictions in the hidden assumptions of the original thought experiment than with relativistic physics. ---CH 06:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I leave it up to others to judge whether my comment that at that time Chis did not really understand what the problem was about was justified or not.

I am also accused of unfamiliarity with standard textbooks. My accusers have never quoted from any specific textbook, whereas I have used quotes from three highly respected textbooks ( A.I.Miller's treatise on emergence of SR, J.L.Synge's classic work on SR/GR and O'Hanion & Ruffini's highly regarded "Gravitation & Spacetime"). These efforts were all either dismissed or ignored. On the contrary, I was confidently informed by Pjacobi that Bell's problem was a "standard textbook example" and when I disputed this, he nominated Rindler and d'Inverno, neither of which contain any reference to BSP. (I checked all 3 editions of Rindler). In fact it was I that found the only mention in a textbook ( 3rd edition of Stephani's "General Relativity") and I have since found only one other, despite searching scores of relativity texts in college libraries and major bookstores.

I could go much further in repudiating the wild allegations made here (and note that ChrisH is hardly a true "outsider" since he was heavily involved against me in the talk page arguments) but that would drag in details of Bell's Spaceship problem (as Chris does below) and this is not the place for that but for comments regarding the conduct of the discussions.Rod Ball 17:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Brief response to Vkopo:

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, note that my 3+ edits were re-instating 3+ deletions of perfectly relevant & legitimate citations that had been established in the article for several months. Therefore the editor's edits I was reverting exceed any limit before I do. Rod Ball 09:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Michael C. Price and "Batmanand": Both of you miss the point of this RfC and refer to the right/wrong of Bell's problem rather than the conduct of the discussion which is at issue. If you have have such clear views of the Bell problem, why did you not contribute to the talk page, where you would have been expected to back up bald assertions with reasoned argument ? I can assure you I do understand relativity and am at least equally well qualified to say that you are simply wrong and do not properly understand SR.

If you were sufficiently aquainted with "Bell's problem" itself and the literature covering it, you would be aware that when Bell broached the topic at CERN his view was contradicted by the whole CERN Theory Division - top flight expert opinion (including SR, in which Bell was not a specialist). Again in 2004 Matsuda & Kinoshita's paper endorsing Bell's argument was widely criticised and contradicted by physicists in Japan when it was first published there.

Thus two features arise that highlight the absurdity of your position:

• (1) On each of these occasions the Bell conclusion (of string breaking) was flatly contradicted by experts at least as well or better qualified than those proposing it.
• (2) On each of these occasions those contradicting the Bell view were a significant (or overwhelming ) majority.

Therefore to claim that such "counter-view" (to Bell) is either cranky or due to misunderstanding SR, is simply ridiculous. Rod Ball 09:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Outside views

These are summaries 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.

[edit] Outside view of JDoolin

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/e3dc6cdc8ec651c7/ca298a3d5ca61130?lnk=st&q=Three+Spaceships&rnum=1&hl=en#ca298a3d5ca61130

The "Three Spaceships" dispute I had with Russel Blackadar is similar. I eventually came to realize that Russel was right. If the front and rear spaceships simultaneously accelerated, they would suddenly be in a reference frame where those accelerations were no longer simultaneous. In the new reference frame, the front spaceship accelerated first, and therefore they are further apart. (Hence the rope would break even though they are taking care to accelerate at the same time.)

If you look through the link, you can see how long it took me before I got this, and how hard I was to convince. JDoolin 05:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't had a response yet, but I had some sense I was making some progress at User_talk:JDoolin#Lorentz_Pre-Relativity_Theory.3F We shall see. JDoolin 22:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Outside view of JoshuaZ

Making no comment on the content or on the user's more general conduct Rod Ball's claim that he had "deeply researched this topic and know and understand it better than the four of you" is simply unacceptable. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources and verifiability. Claiming that one can edit how one chooses because one knows more is simply unacceptable. However, I see almost no sourcing for the article in question. I suspect that if an effort were made to source all statements to standard journal articles and textbooks it would go a long way to dealing with this dispute. It has now come to my attention that the article was well sourced in previous versions and that Rod Ball removed those citations, essentially replacing things with his original research. This is completely unacceptable. JoshuaZ 03:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Vpoko 01:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Addhoc 17:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view of Chris Hillman

From August 2005 to June 2006 I devoted a great deal of effort to improving the content of the Wikipedia, specifically focusing on relativistic physics. Please see

1. User:Hillman/Archive, for a partial list of articles I created, heavily revised, or otherwise made major contributions to during my time as an active contributor,
2. Relativity on the World Wide Web, for a website devoted to exposition of relativistic physics, which I created when I was a graduate student and later handed off to John Baez, who is very widely known for his own outstanding expositions of mathematical physics, for documentation of my long-standing interest in explaining the beauties of general relativity,
3. WikiProject GTR, for a draft WikiProject to which I devoted much effort during my time as a Wikipedian, but which has since been abandoned.

Unfortunately, Rod Ball's disruptive and obnoxious pushing of his cranky point of view in four of the best articles I created :

1. Born coordinates ( 18:12, 18 May 2006 version)
2. Rindler coordinates (15:40, 5 May 2006 version)
3. Bell's spaceship paradox (09:06, 10 June 2006 version)
4. Ehrenfest paradox (17:59, 14 June 2006 version)

ultimately led me to abandon my attempts to contribute to the content of the Wikipedia. Please note that the versions I created form a tightly constructed interlinked quartet, so that destroying any one actually destroys all four articles, and this is what Rod Ball "accomplished" over the objections of several other editors, and please see my user page for more information about my reluctant decision and about my current status as a Wikipedian.

(I saw a need for significant further improvements in the four articles just listed, incidently, involving making it much easier for the general reader to grasp the gist of the arguments, which rested upon possibly technically challenging computations, but Rod Ball's constant disruptions prevented me from being able to try to implement the further improvements I wished to make. However, I think the versions listed above show that I had already taken great care for our readers before Rod ruined things.)

Because I have abandoned my attempt to contribute to the content of the Wikipedia, I was blissfully ignorant of Rod Ball's behavior since June 2006 until this RfC was brought to my attention. The very first thing which caught my eye was the edit cited above, in which Ball says in part:

Remember also that ChrisH had never heard of the problem before and I had great difficulty persuading him to even consult the literature, such was his arrogance. He didn't understand the problem and thought the 2nd s'ship unnecessary because he wanted to model the string elasticity with concatenated springs !! I particularly didn't like his dishonesty in blustering and not acknowledging some elementary errors when they were pointed out to him. He even denied not having read the topic before, when he eventually got round to doing so. His analysis is incorrect due partly to errors and partly to omitting to include relativity.

– User:Rod Ball, 06:41, 18 August 2006, in his user talk page

This statement by Rod Ball concerning what I have done and read, and what I told him about what I have done and read, is, to put it bluntly, an outrageous lie. The truth, which is verifiable by any user who cares to do enough research, is completely the opposite of what Rod Ball claims:

1. In fact, I have been interested in all four topics for many years, as anyone Googling for my posts can discover, with sufficient effort. (Having made thousands of posts over the past decade, I myself would have a hard time finding the posts in which I discussed these topics in the greatest detail, even if I had the time/energy/inclination to do that, which I do not, but the point is that anyone who does have the time/energy/inclination can verify the existence of these posts.)
2. In fact, I understand both the mathematics and the physics very well; Rod Ball, on the other hand, has refused to accept the results of simple computations using standard techniques in relativistic physics, which establish that the mainstream views concerning the Bell and Ehrenfest paradoxes are correct (in the former case, the mainstream view is that "the string will break"), and that his views are incorrect (Rod's dissident opinion is that "the string will not break").
3. In fact, I not only know the literature very well, I told Rod Ball that I know the literature well, and I cited quite a few papers, especially an excellent review paper by Øyvind Grøn (see the citations in Ehrenfest paradox, for example). I studied dozens of papers while writing the above listed articles, and Rod Ball cannot possibly have been unaware of this. Consequently, in my view it is impossible that he was unaware that his claim "ChrisH had never heard of the problem before and I had great difficulty persuading him to even consult the literature" is an outrageous lie.
4. Rod Ball cannot possibly be unaware that I myself created the figure showing the world lines of two spaceships in Bell's spaceship paradox (version of 09:06, 10 June 2006), so again, I can only conclude that his assertion that I "thought the 2nd s'ship unnecessary" is a bald-faced lie. I am aware that these are strong words, but Rod Ball's statements quoted above are so stunningly counterfactual that I really do not know how else to characterize them. Wikipedians familiar with my contributions will appreciate that I have only very rarely used such strong language in the Wikipedia, even in the face of strong provocation.
5. In my versions of these four articles, specifically Bell's spaceship paradox, I introduced not one but several ways of approaching the phenomena discussed therein. I took great care to introduce the more elementary approaches first and only mentioned elasticity briefly, at the very end, where I was careful to point out that one difficulty with using linear spring reponses (see Hooke's Law) in any attempt to model a (neccessarily non-rigid) accelerating rod is that the non-relativistic form of Hooke's law is not compatible with Lorentz transformations, a defect which can be obscured by a naive application of the theory of elasticity. Therefore, I said, great care is needed in trying to apply the theory of elasticity in a relativistic context. This circumstance is well known in the field. Rod Ball's claim that I "wanted to model the string elasticity with concatenated springs" is therefore taken out of context and seriously misleading.
6. Ball has complained that there is "continuing controversy" in the physics literature. A glance at recent arXiv contributions may suggest to casual observers that he is correct, but a deeper examination (or greater knowledge of physics) will show that this conclusion would be mistaken. Discussion of this point involves an extra-Wikipedia issue, so I will say here only that I am intimately familiar with the contents of literally dozens of textbooks and monographs, and thousands of research papers in this area. My own view of the alleged "controversy" (which I explained in great detail in lengthy talk page discussions with Ball) is that there is no controversy, only some very bad papers and arXiv eprints which are clearly based upon a woefully inadequate knowledge of the large pre-existing literature and upon embarrassing elementary misunderstandings. While one has to be a physicist (or know some physicists) to verify the truth of my claim, anyone with knowledge of the field will know that respectable physicists side with the mainstream, not with the tiny minority who hold dissident (and provably incorrect!) viewpoints similar to those of Rod Ball. In his review paper, which offers hundreds of citations, Øyvind Grøn expresses a very similar viewpoint to my own. I would just add to this that Peter Jacobi and Ed Schaeffer do have formal training in relativistic physics, and I have extensive formal training in mathematics (see my user page). AFAIK, Rod Ball lacks formal training in either physics or mathematics.
7. My confidence (not arrogance) is based upon my extensive knowledge of relativistic physics and my extensive computations (using standard techniques, I repeat!) concerning (among hundreds of others) the very topics of the four articles listed above. As anyone can verify by examining the talk pages of these articles and various user talk pages, I devoted enormous effort to trying to reason with Ball, responding point by point to his complaints and explaining using detailed computations where his errors lay. His responses, not mine, exhibit ignorance, blustering, and general bull-headedness.
8. I simply cannot imagine how any sane person could possibly conclude, after examining even some of the voluminous (in fact overwhelming) evidence available here at WP and at other places, that in any of my detailed discussions of various aspects of relativistic physics, I have somehow "omitted to include relativity".

I trust that any user reading this RfC will appreciate why I have little stomach for the task of enumerating specific instances of rude and disruptive behavior on the part of Rod Ball, although if I took the time I could list pages and pages of links. I can however assure other users that on the basis of my miserable months of extensive interactions with him, the quotation above accurately conveys a sense of what attempting to reason with Rod Ball is like. So let me just sum up as follows (please note that in the context of an RfC, I feel free to be somewhat more forceful in expressing my individual opinion of another user's behavior and competence to edit articles on specific topics than I would in other contexts):

In my view, Rod Ball is a classic relativity crank (person), and one of the most disruptive editors I had the misfortune to encounter in my 14 months as an active Wikipedian. The hallmark of the crank is that he steadfastly refuses to admit any error regardless of all contrary evidence presented to him, even in the face of mathematical disproof of his incorrect views. Rod Ball's behavior in this affair amply illustrates this lamentable characteristic, which in my view prevents him from functioning here except as a disruptive problem editor who not only adds specific bad content and prevents the addition of good content, but who also drives out of the Wikipedia knowledgable editors such as myself, editors who are devoted to the goal of providing a readable, reliable, and up-to-date encyclopedia presenting accurate information in all areas of knowledge, including highly technical fields such as relativistic physics. It is precisely in such areas that wise and accurate contributions require both technical mastery and a full appreciation of many conceptually subtle points. Contrary to what Rod Ball claims in the above quoted edit, my own contributions over 14 months exhibited that I possess those qualities (in regard to relativistic physics). Rod Ball's own edits, unfortunately, demonstrate (to anyone with sufficient knowledge of the field) that (in regard to the topics discussed in the four articles listed above, at least) he is utterly lacking in knowledge, ability, civility, wisdom, and humility.---CH 20:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Outside view of User:Vpoko

At the very least, Rod Ball seems to be completely disregarding 3RR (and then some). 02:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC) 02:01

Users who endorse this summary:

1. As an uninvolved admin, I intend to block him if he continues. JoshuaZ 19:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
2. --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 18:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view of Michael C. Price

Rod Ball's doesn't understand special relativity, and has no inclination to accept corrections from others (see his dismissal of the use of a uniform gravitational field in a thought experiment as "moot"). That makes him yet another relativity Crank (person) that so plagues WP. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorese this statement

1. As a University-level physicst who just spent an awfully long time in the last academic year studying Special Relativity, I can say pretty much categorically that Rod Ball is simply wrong. This is not an NPOV issue, he just misunderstands the basic physics. That is fine - the basic physics is quite hard! - but he needs to acknowledge this and stop taking up the valuable time of the physicist Wikipedians. Batmanand | Talk 11:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view of User:Pervect

I think it's a real shame that Chris Hillman's version of the article has disappeared into cyberpsace limbo.

Hillman's approach as a whole is a bit advanced, but has a great deal of useful material. I would like to see the Hillman version of the article merged with the current version. Since User:Hillman has decided to take indefinite leave, I'm willing to do the work myself, if I can do so without constantly fighting Rod Ball. Pervect 02:44, 29 September 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.