User talk:Sdedeo/archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Don't cry for me Argentina 2 Please reconsider your decision 3 Redshift article 4 errant block 5 Blocks 6 wtf? 7 What was the reason that you deleted half of the loop quantum gravity article?? 8 Andrew Gower

[edit] Don't cry for me Argentina

Hola Sdedeo, after a quick review of the discussions, I can understand that this is a reason to cry even for a mature man or woman. But don't do it! ;-) And don't overgeneralize your experience to all of Wikipedia. Look at the definition of one of the things you haven't been involved in but you know, and you will see that it is pretty fair and balanced after all.

Loop quantum gravity pages are largely controlled by an organized movement of cranks, and it is indeed a good idea to give up such a fight. They will tell you that things are Lorentz invariant even though they are manifestly not, they will say anything. But the world doesn't end here.

Of course, I have given up this particular struggle long time ago because it became an inefficient waste of time. For example, the objections to loop quantum gravity [1] were undefendable against the movement mentioned above, and it was not about any subtleties in the content. It was about the intolerance of these guys towards an honest evaluation of reality and collegial discussion between people who share at least the basic rules of fair and rational thinking.

Switch to something else, let this sleep, and if you had something interesting to say or write, which is more than just crying ;-), you can post on my blog etc.

Yours, Lubos

[edit] Please reconsider your decision

This is my edit I left on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heim theory you started:

I happen to be one of the two persons which are responsible for Sdedeo's departure. It's a pity as he was a good contributor. However, I do not feel guilty. I never attacked him personally and moreover the more LQG papers I looked into, the more I felt he was wrong about the rather obscure problemm we discussed. I simply believe Sdedeo had a bad day. I sincerly hope he will return soon to Wikipedia. I do not believe his Wikibreak changes anything in the procedure which he started.

I do hope you will reconsider you decision. I never felt really angry with you even when you questioned my professional qualification. You seem to be a nice guy. Everyone can have a bad day. The situation is even sadder to me because I'm not even a fan of loop quantum gravity.

I hope to see you soon on Wikipedia physics articles. Best regards, Friendly Neighbour 13:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey FN -- my decision to leave was not based on you, but rather on my own behavior. It's just that I seem to be tempermentally unsuited to the kind of work that wikipedia requires to improve articles. I spent more than a year working on political articles (e.g., ACLU), and I know how savage and irritating things can get. Even when I'm talking with fellow physicists, it's just too stressful for me. I wish you the best of luck. If you have questions on physics that you think I might be able to answer, drop me a line on my talk page and I'll see what I can do -- I just don't feel up to jumping "into the fray". Sdedeo (tips) 20:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sdedeo, thanks for your comment in my user talk page. I didn't see the furore over LQG which evidently led to your departure, so I can't comment on that, other than that, in general, I wish that both ardent critics and ardent proponents of string theory (in particular) would tone it all down.

As you know, I've also been trying to leave WP to its own devices for quite some time. Have you wikimailed User:Anville about her migration project? ---CH 19:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redshift article

I hope you found some encouragement in the Wikipedidom through that article. I have been working for more than a year to try to get it to the point it has now reached. Day-by-day I'm becoming more-and-more encouraged by the direction Wikipedia is seeming to take with regards to reporting on science and science-related issues. You can see some of the works-in-progress at WP:FRINGE and WP:SCI. Thanks for your help and hope to see you around occasionally. --ScienceApologist 16:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi SA -- it's funny, I recognized some of the names in the discussion page, but I was really, really impressed by the article. Not a trace of "affirmative action" for the kooky side of things. I don't think I have the energy to really join the gang, but twiddling things here and there I think I can get back into. All the best, Sdedeo (tips) 19:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] errant block

<<unblock-auto|1=38.98.159.74|2=|3=Dmcdevit>>

• Referred to the blocking admin (see here). Please wait patiently. Thanks. If you can post all of the blocking text in future, you'll help speed things up for reviewing admins. Not essential, just something that would help others. Thanks! ⇨REDVEЯS 21:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocks

Dmcdevit is not only a respected editor, they are one of the most respected editors here. Dmcdevit has CheckUser access and often has to make blocks for the good of Wikipedia as a whole that make life difficult for them. The block was clearly (well, to me, I don't know if ordinary admin access lets me see more than others can access - I don't think so in this case) made in good faith following some nasty abuses of Wikipedia's openness by people using this WiFi point. In those type of cases, an editor has to act for the collective good of the encyclopedia first and deal with the consequences later. They're now dealing with the consequences and will deal with them in good grace and in good time (Dmcdevit is very conscientious).

I'm sorry you were inconvenienced by this single block (yes, one block can do this much collateral damage - we don't like it but it is a fact of life) and I hope that it won't spoil your enjoyment of Wikipedia.

No admin or other abuse here - just a very good faith block based on very good evidence that happened to have friendly fire consequences - as happens sometimes, and always to our regret. Happy editing in future! ⇨REDVEЯS 19:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As I noted, I certaintly have nothing against Dmcdevit and assumed the block was in good faith. I was just surprised to see the severity of the block -- six months -- without any supporting evidence (there are no anon IP contributions related to the blocked IP as I noted.) Sdedeo (tips) 20:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

CheckUser awards knowledge beyond us mere mortals, and with good reason. A CU block may look unsupported at first or second glance, but, believe me, it never really is. Never. ⇨REDVEЯS 21:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, OK, so the answer is that admins can block IPs for practically unlimited periods with no oversight or need to show cause? This is certaintly a dark corner of the wiki that I have not encountered in the years I've been involved with the project. By the way, when Dmcdevit finally logs in, will the IP be unblocked, or will he simply make it so that Sdedeo, logged in, can use it. Sdedeo (tips) 21:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There's more oversight, more closely controlled, on CheckUser than there is on general everyday blocks. The Foundation itself monitors CheckUser - it is something that can be abused, but the consensus and the ultimate management agree won't be abused. Really, I know you've been inconvenienced and continue to be inconvenienced by this block; but please understand that it was not arbitary, it was imposed in good faith and it will be removed as soon as possible. Everybody here, DMC and me and other admins and most users, are all aware of the terrors of collateral damage. We hate collateral damage with avengence and do everything we can to avoid it. But it still happens. And there's little we can do about that, whilst we all try our best to minimise it.

So, please, continue to make noises that are beginning to sound like rants about admin abuse if you want (and sadly they are sounding like that). You're entitled to do so, and, whilst it gains you no sympathy at all, I appreciate that you feel better from it.

But there's a bigger picture that you're understandably missing and I'm sorry about this. Nevertheless, there are people - volunteers, people you haven't met and never will, people who care about your ability to edit - who are working on this problem as we speak. DMC is one of them, I'm another. TBH, nothing can be so urgent that you need to edit this second. But if you do, we're all working on a way that will allow it.

Just be cool in the meantime, hey? ⇨REDVEЯS 21:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Redvers. I don't believe there was anything rantish about what I just said. I have accused no one of abuse, and have repeatedly stated that I believe everyone here to be acting in good faith. I appreciate learning that there is oversight, if not public. I don't appreciate your rather snide tone, however, which I don't think was earned.

Just to repeat an unanswered question: when DMC gets around to it, will the block be amended simply to allow user Sdedeo through, or will it be lifted entirely?

Yours, Sdedeo (tips) 23:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sdedeo, just stopping by in hope that I can be of some more help for this situation. Sorry it's causing you issue, it must be quite annoying to have to wait for all this bureaucracy to be sorted out; I hope you are soon back to editing. Redvers is really trying to help, and has been extra helpful in his responses; his tone didn't seem snide, and I'm sure he was just trying to explain things as best as possible. In the meantime, if you haven't already seen it, the CheckUser Policy page provides a lot of information on what CheckUser is used for, which might help to explain things a bit better. I hope the page is of some help, and good luck in your future work here on the encyclopedia. -- Natalya 23:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Natalya! Yours, Sdedeo (tips) 23:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the inconvenience, Sdedeo; I wish I could have been around to take care of this better, too. To answer your question, the IP was being used by a persistent banned user for evasion with abusive accounts, as determined by checkuser, so the fact that nothing shows up on the IPs contributions is deceptive. In fact, we have a problem with vandals using hotspots to change their IPs and be untraceable, so they tend to be blocked like open proxies a lot. The good news is that a legitimate user can simply go back to their normal internet connection and not be blocked. Dmcdevit·t 02:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much Dmc. This is all very new to me, so I didn't quite understand at first. Thank you for your work as admin, Sdedeo (tips) 02:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I can tell you that this block was due to the Cplot sockpuppets. You can learn more about Cplot and the Cplot sockpuppets at the administrator's noticeboard. This is one of the more severe blocks for Cplot sockpuppets. Dmcdevit has been the most diligent in trying to stop the sockpuppets with these blocks: T-Mobile, SprintPCS, SprintPCS, T-Mobile Hotspots, T-Mobile Hotspots, Over 9,000 T-Mobile Hotspots share these few IPs. A group of T-Mobile based Wikipedia editors tried to raise awareness about this issue, but it's been suppressed by a lot of admins (not sure why). Everyone who chose SprintPCS as their ISP was completely blocked by those two SprintPCS blocks. Essjay blocked another WiFi hotspot for six moths to stop Cplot sockpuppets. Centrx also blocked another major corporation WAN for three years (it's not really an openproxy and Centrx knows that, but I think Centrx feels it's useful as retaliation against Cplot) to get back at the Cplot sockpuppets. Naconkantari blocked this IP for one year also to stop a Cplot sockpuppet. Be thankful that wasn't your home (or maybe it was it's someon's home in Wikiper Park so it could be yours). The Cplot sockpuppets may bring about the end of civilian editing at Wikipedia. None of this seems to have slowed down the Cplot sockpuppets yet, but if the administrators and checkuser sysops remain diligent, I think we'll eventually get them. I hope this helps you understand the pressing need for Wikipedia to block you from editing under these circumstances. --TheGreatWhiteWails 03:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wtf?

Can someone tell me what is going on? It's like everyone is freaking out? Sdedeo (tips) 21:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The guy who keeps posting that rant on your page is User:Cplot, the vandal whose block caused you to get autoblocked the other day. We currently get about half a dozen new socks of his every day to block. He thinks Wikipedia is run by the CIA, or something like that. Just ignore him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What was the reason that you deleted half of the loop quantum gravity article??

Tell me. Many people say that the article before was much better. I understand that you may not like loop quantum gravity. But, this is not what a gentleman or a lady should do. Would you mind kindly restoring it? Moreover, the part that you deleted was the most important part of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.54.118.8 (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

I did not delete half of the LQG article -- rather after some discussion we deleted a chunk of the talk page where a few of us got into a fight about things and later made up. I did remember vaguely deleting a chunk of OR from the LQG article itself, which I think was the right thing to do. As for restoring my deletions, not only do I think my deletions were right, but the history there is for all to see, so you can simply restore what you wish (following the usual principles of consensus, etc. etc.) Sdedeo (tips) 19:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Gower

If you would not mind, please enable and confirm your e-mail on Wikipedia. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Done! Sdedeo (tips) 18:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)