Nicolo Giraud again

[Peter Damian]

Someone's written to me complaining about what's going on here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... on=history

AFAICS, Haiduc added material to this article, with the usual POV, but other editors in good standing added some perfectly good material. Risker is now deleting both the good and the bad indiscriminately.

I haven't looked at the full story, but this is what happens when bureaucrats completely take over an organisation, having sacked all the people who were adding value. "Wikipedia will never be finished".

[Michaeldsuarez]

Someone's written to me complaining about what's going on here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... on=history

AFAICS, Haiduc added material to this article, with the usual POV, but other editors in good standing added some perfectly good material. Risker is now deleting both the good and the bad indiscriminately.

I haven't looked at the full story, but this is what happens when bureaucrats completely take over an organisation, having sacked all the people who were adding value. "Wikipedia will never be finished".

You have it all wrong. According to Risker, Sobamlo and Stürmburg aren't Haiduc:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nicolo_Giraud&diff=493816401&oldid=493798436:

Actually, you are more likely to be a sock of Haiduc than is the other editor. Haiduc was banned for his excessive emphasis on aspects of homosexuality and paedophilia in multiple articles. You are proposing to reinstate edits focusing on the same topic areas. So let's go line by line, okay? [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 12:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sobamlo and Stürmburg were the only two users revising that article from March 23rd to May 17th:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicolo_Giraud&diff=483598436&oldid=463340280

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicolo_Giraud&diff=493029142&oldid=483598436

There weren't any "other editors in good standing add[ing] some perfectly good material."

In addition, Saddhiyama was the one who reverted the article back to its November 2011 version, not Risker:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicolo_Giraud&diff=493724166&oldid=493029142

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicolo_Giraud&diff=493724166&oldid=463340280

In fact, Risker was the one who opposed the wholesale revert of Sobamlo's and Stürmburg's revisions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicolo_Giraud&diff=493760155&oldid=493724166:

Undid revision 493724166 by [[Special:Contributions/Saddhiyama|Saddhiyama]] ([[User_talk:Saddhiyama|talk]]) I am undoing this change because many, if not all, of the edits improved the article. Discuss individual edits on talk please

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nicolo_Giraud&diff=493816401&oldid=493798436:

So, you reverted *all* edits regardless of quality. That is reason to do a partial revert, perhaps; however, there is no reason not to discuss this on the talk page of the article. Can you explain why, for example, you feel that the current version of the lead is better than the alternative version? [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 12:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This is what happens when you post without examining the full history. Don't be so careless, especially when posting to the a public forum. You have other people's reputations in your hands; you have a responsibility to get the story right.

[Peter Damian]

This is what happens when you post without examining the full history. Don't be so careless, especially when posting to the a
public forum. You have other people's reputations in your hands; you have a responsibility to get the story right.

I agree. Slapped twice tonight. I'll have a look in the morning.

[oscarlechien]

I just posted about this. Haiduc has been ID'd. He's almost certainly not a pedophile. This is a cultural misunderstanding. PD knows what I'm taking about here.

Risker should learn to keep her mouth shut. She doesn't understand at all what's going on here. It's going to end badly, obviously....

[Rathel]

Surprise - a wild Jack Merridew appears.

A large number of known sock masters have targeted that page and others related to it over the past 4 years. Of those, Geogre, SDJ, and Jack Merridew were involved. All are friends of Risker. All are people that Risker knew socked. The page and others on the topic also had a lot of sock vandalism.

Lets be honest folks, socks are mostly put forth by those who run the system to continue to run the system. Who needs to worry about consensus when you can easily use socks to override it?

[The Garbage Scow]

Lets be honest folks, socks are mostly put forth by those who run the system to continue to run the system. Who needs to worry about consensus when you can easily use socks to override it?

That's why they're so mouth-frothingly looney toons about anyone else using socks. The guilty are always the first to join the mob against someone else someone who has done exactly that they've done. They're all just crooked politicians. Hypocrites.

Looking back through the WP:List of banned users, I see a number of former administrators, including socks of previously banned users who went on to win RfA with a sock. Dereks1X/Archtransit is a good example. Makes me wonder how many administrators and current/former arbs are socks of people who have been blocked or banned.

[EricBarbour]

That's why they're so mouth-frothingly looney toons about anyone else using socks. The guilty are always the first to join the mob against someone else someone who has done exactly that they've done. They're all just crooked politicians. Hypocrites.

That bears repeating, in a more assertive manner:

That's why they're so mouth-frothingly looney toons about anyone else using socks. The guilty are always the first to join the mob against someone else someone who has done exactly that they've done. They're all just crooked politicians. Hypocrites.

Looking back through the WP:List of banned users, I see a number of former administrators, including socks of previously banned users who went on to win RfA with a sock. Dereks1X/Archtransit is a good example. Makes me wonder how many administrators and current/former arbs are socks of people who have been blocked or banned.

Archtransit is the one who claimed to have THREE admin socks. One was banned, the others are believed to still be active.....
plus, I figure at least 10-20% of all the votes on RFAs, RFCs, Arbcom runs, etc. are socks. Some a lot more than that.....

[The Garbage Scow]

plus, I figure at least 10-20% of all the votes on RFAs, RFCs, Arbcom runs, etc. are socks. Some a lot more than that.....

Oh RfAs for sure. How else can we explain some of the clowns who are admins? Well, I guess part of that explanation is that once you're an admin it's like having tenure at a public school: you pretty much have to be caught with child porn or assault the principal to lose your job.

Is IRC still the great private backchannel method admins use to gang up on people and shop for blocks?

[EricBarbour]

Is IRC still the great private backchannel method admins use to gang up on people and shop for blocks?

Of course. In every way, Wikipedia is an out-of-date community. Primitive and fond of archaic methods.
So long as hackers like it, Wikipedians will use it. Facebook, by comparison, is just a place to pretend to like each other.....