I blocked Everyking for 24 hours because he had made 4 reverts to the [[Pieces of Me]] article in 24 hours. But since he is an admin, he continues to edit. Is there something we can do about this?
RickK
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page � Try My Yahoo!
Rick wrote:
I blocked Everyking for 24 hours because he had made 4 reverts to the [[Pieces of Me]] article in 24 hours. But since he is an admin, he continues to edit. Is there something we can do about this?
RickK
Isn't that block evasion? His block time should be restarted, according to policy, from the time he last made an edit.
Disclaimer: I have been deeply involved in a dispute between Everyking, myself, and several other users relating to [[Ashlee Simpson]] articles, that has gone to arbitration. Heed my advice at your own risk.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
But how do we enforce it, short of getting his adminship revoked?
RickK
John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote: Rick wrote:
I blocked Everyking for 24 hours because he had made 4 reverts to the [[Pieces of Me]] article in 24 hours. But since he is an admin, he continues to edit. Is there something we can do about this?
RickK
Isn't that block evasion? His block time should be restarted, according to policy, from the time he last made an edit.
Disclaimer: I have been deeply involved in a dispute between Everyking, myself, and several other users relating to [[Ashlee Simpson]] articles, that has gone to arbitration. Heed my advice at your own risk.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]]) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page � Try My Yahoo!
Rick wrote:
But how do we enforce it, short of getting his adminship revoked?
RickK
He's the subject of an arbitration case and a proposed temporary injunction. Post the evidence (and make a request for a temp injunction), and the arbcom will take care of the rest.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Rick (giantsrick13@yahoo.com) [050117 19:10]:
I blocked Everyking for 24 hours because he had made 4 reverts to the [[Pieces of Me]] article in 24 hours. But since he is an admin, he continues to edit. Is there something we can do about this?
Everyking is currently in arbitration. This strikes me as relevant for the evidence page. If someone could do this, most detailed evidence possible please.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Rick (giantsrick13@yahoo.com) [050117 19:10]:
I blocked Everyking for 24 hours because he had made 4 reverts to the [[Pieces of Me]] article in 24 hours. But since he is an admin, he continues to edit. Is there something we can do about this?
Everyking is currently in arbitration. This strikes me as relevant for the evidence page. If someone could do this, most detailed evidence possible please.
- d.
I have posted a request for a stronger temporary injunction than the one proposed by Grunt for two reasons:
* Everyking has already voluntarily limited himself to one revert per day on Autobiography and its subarticles (see [[User:Everyking/Agreement]]) * Everyking abuses his sysop powers to evade his block
I hope Rick can be more specific with his evidence, but I've provided links to discussion on Everyking's block evasion in my request. I'm going to try dig up some diffs now.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
I hope Rick can be more specific with his evidence, but I've provided links to discussion on Everyking's block evasion in my request. I'm going to try dig up some diffs now.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Well, again, I'm not sure this is evasion. He does not seem to have unlblocked himself (Ambi unblocked him yesterday). It doesn't seem that he's abused his admin powers to further his Ashlee Simpson agenda. Although it's interesting he can still revert, he hasn't reverted Simpson articles since Rick's 24 hour block..
This seems odd to me. When I block myself, I'm not able to edit without being unblocked. Although Everyking was unblocked by Ambi at 10:39, 16 Jan, he should not have been able to edit after RickK reapplied the block at 01:14, 17 Jan, yet he still edits.
I'm not sure how this is possible. Is this another block bug in the new software, or am I missing something?
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 00:10:20 -0800 (PST), Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
I blocked Everyking for 24 hours because he had made 4 reverts to the [[Pieces of Me]] article in 24 hours. But since he is an admin, he continues to edit. Is there something we can do about this?
RickK
Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo! _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Cool Hand Luke (failure.to.communicate@gmail.com) [050117 21:30]:
This seems odd to me. When I block myself, I'm not able to edit without being unblocked. Although Everyking was unblocked by Ambi at 10:39, 16 Jan, he should not have been able to edit after RickK reapplied the block at 01:14, 17 Jan, yet he still edits. I'm not sure how this is possible. Is this another block bug in the new software, or am I missing something?
Apparently you can still do rollbacks when unblocked.
- d.
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:05:51 +1100, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Apparently you can still do rollbacks when unblocked.
Blocking only blocks you from editing, not from using any admin powers. You can still rollback, delete, undelete and block users when you are blocked.
Angela.
Angela said:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:05:51 +1100, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Apparently you can still do rollbacks when unblocked.
Blocking only blocks you from editing, not from using any admin powers. You can still rollback, delete, undelete and block users when you are blocked.
Ah, so does this mean that all of the activities by Everyking that have appeared in the edit lists since his blocking actually constituted legitimate rollbacks?
Ah, so does this mean that all of the activities by Everyking that have appeared in the edit lists since his blocking actually constituted legitimate rollbacks?
It appears that way. The rollbacks are furthermore not related to Ashlee Simpson, so I don't see this as an abuse. Most roll back straightforward vandalism which I think is admirable under the circumstances.
Surely a rollback should be classed as a revert?
TBSDY
Angela wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:05:51 +1100, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Apparently you can still do rollbacks when unblocked.
Blocking only blocks you from editing, not from using any admin powers. You can still rollback, delete, undelete and block users when you are blocked.
Angela.
csherlock@ljh.com.au (csherlock@ljh.com.au) [050119 09:53]:
Surely a rollback should be classed as a revert?
Rollbacks of simple vandalism (as defined by policy) are not counted as reverts for 3RR, and evidently they're not reverts as we know them in the design of Mediawiki either.
Using rollback to perform an article edit that constitutes a revert in the 3RR sense would be a *severely* dodgy thing for a 3RR-blocked admin to do, though. I'd hope Everyking wouldn't do that.
- d.
To be fair, Evercat was NOT using his reverts on the article he was blocked for.
RickK
"csherlock@ljh.com.au" csherlock@ljh.com.au wrote: Surely a rollback should be classed as a revert?
TBSDY
Angela wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:05:51 +1100, David Gerard wrote:
Apparently you can still do rollbacks when unblocked.
Blocking only blocks you from editing, not from using any admin powers. You can still rollback, delete, undelete and block users when you are blocked.
Angela.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
I know that lots of people have there homepages set to news sites (yahoo!, /., google news etc.) or bolgs or what not. i would humbily request that as many wikipedia editors as possible set wikinews as thier homepage. Firstly because the news you get there is so much more diverse than what you get anywhere else, and also because most articles could do with copyediting. Im not talking about anything too complicated, just fixing up mistakes made by people who dont have english as thier first language, or a bit of NPOVing. The number of articles being written isnt great, but its reasonable and will continue to grow, but what is really needed right know is a whole heap of experienced wiki users to just touch up the articles to make them that little bit better. A couple of minutes a day from just twenty or thirty experienced wikipedians could significantly lift the quality of the project.
Thankyou.
Paz y amor, [[User:The bellman]]
csherlock@ljh.com.au said:
Surely a rollback should be classed as a revert?
It's a gray area. If an admin knowingly abused rollback power while blocked this should probably be a summary de-admin offence, in my opinion, but here Everyking was apparently using his rollback power to deal with simple vandalism, which strikes me as a very admirable way to use his suddenly acquired spare time.
Tony Sidaway (minorityreport@bluebottle.com) [050120 13:02]:
csherlock@ljh.com.au said:
Surely a rollback should be classed as a revert?
It's a gray area. If an admin knowingly abused rollback power while blocked this should probably be a summary de-admin offence, in my opinion, but here Everyking was apparently using his rollback power to deal with simple vandalism, which strikes me as a very admirable way to use his suddenly acquired spare time.
The current arbcom temporary injunction on Everyking says that he gets one edit *of any sort* per day to any article Ashlee Simpson related (and of course he can be as convincing as he likes on talk pages so his edits are accepted) - and that should he be blocked, using admin rollback on Ashlee-related articles will get a de-adminning for the duration of the case.
So far as I am aware, Everyking has not in fact abused his admin powers on the articles in contention. If this is not the case, please let us know and put it on /Evidence !
- d.
The following are two emails from the wikitech-l list. Every time you edit, say a little prayer of thanks for the devs who make it all possible.
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:38:25 +1100, Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
I said on the village pump that I thought we are doing a great job, but I don't think any of the developers I was aiming that comment at read it. Let me take this opportunity to thank everyone and recognise what we have acheived.
We've been working in adverse circumstances. During peak times, the site has been extremely heavily loaded and unstable. Any slight error in misconfiguration, or inaction at a particular time when action should have been taken, causes the site to crash. I've lost count of how many problems we've identified and fixed just over the last few weeks.
Many users say "the developers are doing a great job", or "we all know that the developers are very busy", but the fact is that 99% of users don't have a clue what we are doing. They don't know what our achievements have been and they don't know the challenges we face. Gerard's comments are certainly refreshing in this regard, but I think I can add to them. Assume I am speaking on behalf of the users, since I'm sure every user would agree with me if they only knew who to thank.
Big thanks go to JamesDay, who almost single-handedly administers 8 database servers, a task requiring constant monitoring and work on the order of hours per day. James's advice to the MediaWiki developers and other system administrators is invaluable.
Also on the topic of database administration, Kate's servmon and WikiServices bots which have kept the site running when otherwise it would have been choked with long-running queries.
Thanks to Med and Submarine for their work in network and hardware administration of the Paris squids. Well done Mark and Kate for getting PowerDNS up and running and thus getting the Paris squids into service.
Domas's setproctitle() patch is amazing and we all know it. Of course his other system administration and development work is greatly appreciated.
Thanks to Brion, JeLuF and Hashar for their tireless and usually unrecognised work in fixing MediaWiki bugs.
Thanks to Kate for setting up Pen and Perlbal. This is the third time I'm thanking Kate and that's no coincidence - if she left us we'd be left with a dozen pieces of software that no-one else knows how to use.
I know you're all stressed, all we seem to get is complaints despite what we've acheived. I decided after Caroline Ewen's post on wikipedia-l that I can't afford to answer every single question asking "why is the site slow" or every report of "I'm getting backtrace errors!" The fact is that the site has grown to such a size that every time something goes wrong, we can expect a flood of complaints and queries. My advice would be to answer only some of them, and let alert users distribute the information to everyone who asks. Or just ignore them -- remember your time is valuable. Think of what you could have achieved in the time it took you to put a single user out of their ignorance.
When the public forums are too noisy with uninformed speculation, let's organise what we need to make the site better in less visible, more constructive forums, and work with the Board to make it happen.
-- Tim Starling
and
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:41:15 +0000, Neil Harris usenet@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
Just to take this a bit further. I thought I'd compare Wikipedia with one of the "well-run sites" that we are supposed to be competing with. Google is a good direct comparison, because of its dynamic content, with cachable frequent queries.
Looking at the difference in traffic between Google and Wikipedia on Alexa shows that:
- Wikipedia has 300 page views per million
- Google has 16,000 page views per million
Thus, Google serves roughly 53 times the number of page views compared to Wikipedia.
However,
- Wikipedia currently has 39 servers
- Google has an estimated 50,000 - 100,000 servers in its worldwide farm
of clusters Thus, Google has roughly 1250 - 2500 times as many servers as Wikipedia [Source: http://www.tnl.net/blog/entry/How_many_Google_machines for an estimate for April last year, and allowing for more recent expenditure]
Thus, we might regard Wikipedia as being roughly 24 to 48 times more "efficient" in its use of hardware than Google. Given that Google has spent over $250M on hardware, to obtain reasonable parity for our developers to be expected to compete with Google at our current traffic we should have around 1000 - 2000 high-performance servers, at a cost of several million US$.
So, a reasonable answer to critics seems to be:
- the developers are already doing very well indeed coping with the
combination of extremely high demand and very limited resources
- they already know there are big growth and capacity problems, and are
working hard on scalability and reliability
- send money, rather than complaining
-- Neil
Remember boys and girls there would be no Wikimedia without Mediawiki.
paz y amor, [[User:The bellman]]
Unless something has happened since last night that I'm unaware of, no, Everyking has not used his admin powers on the articles he's edit warring.
RickK
David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote: So far as I am aware, Everyking has not in fact abused his admin powers on the articles in contention. If this is not the case, please let us know and put it on /Evidence !
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'