Drmies

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats blecch!
Post Reply
User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Drmies

Post by CrowsNest » Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:30 am

:lol:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =854844200

I'm teaching a Wikipedia class this fall and want to devote a class period to Wikipedia and gender trouble.
I'm guessing he won't be teaching them his own rather curious history of presenting himself as a man, woman and it, and doing other similar weird shit, as some kind of point making game. Not to mention his history of defending the very users who make Wikipedia a really shitty place to be for those who don't want to be engaged in permanent penis measuring contests.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Drmies

Post by CrowsNest » Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:44 am

He seems to be on a charm offensive today......

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =854828657

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =854960010

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =854958765

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =854943118

Sad.

Wikipedians are gullible, having an annoying tendency to only refer to their own experience of an Administrator when the job is about assessing them in the round, but it will take more than a bit of digital butt-kissing to hide what he is really all about.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Drmies

Post by CrowsNest » Sun Aug 19, 2018 2:35 pm

Hmm "aggressive hatting". Sounds like something I should try. Kindly explain how one conveys "aggression" via template:hat, if that's what was used. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
No surprise to see Drmies befuddled buy the very idea doing anything with Wikipedia templates can be seen as aggressive, much less one whose specific function is the act of shutting down a discussion. Many quite rightly see that as aggressive full stop, given how Wikipedia is presented as a good faith collaboration, while others see it as aggressive if it happens unilaterally, without warning or the agreement of most present.

All of this seemingly goes over Drmies' head. What's worse, he probably isn't even really confused as to what the other person means. He just disagrees with it, and is intent on starting a fight with them over their right to hold this opinion in his sandpit.

This is Drmies, the guy who tries to portray himself as a feminist, very concerned by the gender gap in the editor base.

He's a fraud.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Drmies

Post by CrowsNest » Mon Aug 20, 2018 10:42 am

Ottawa11, your edits suggest you have an extraordinary interest in this subject, but that doesn't mean you should fill up this page with every single one of the subject's opinions. That they may be verified doesn't necessarily mean they are worth including; this is one of the things you need to understand about Wikipedia as a new user. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
This from the same guy whose favourite mantra is 'if reliable source didn't notice it, it isn't worth including'. Other than just waiting for the douche to hack your work to bits with arrogant edit summaries insulting your intelligence, how is anyone supposed to know what this idiot considers worthy of inclusion?
Ottawa11, you need to sign your messages properly, and "I need more spefifc information" is nonsense: this isn't about what you need. Ten percent of your edits are to this one article, and someone with five article talk page edits maybe shouldn't be telling others to go there.

Coriolanus, don't call me darling; don't call me anything, and again, what you think is best is one thing, but with less than a dozen edits on only one article, you are the epitome of a single-purpose account and you are the last person who should be lecturing anyone on what Wikipedia needs. And the tweets are actually covered in the article: you trying to overplay that is WP:UNDUE. Paul Erik, thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Anyone surprised that this douche objects to being called "darling", when he's said far worse to others? Or that he is telling these novice users that they are not entitled to an opinion, much less to expect things of the mighty Drmies. His role is to tell them the way things will be, their role is to listen or get blocked.

What an arrogant prick. Example 1,218,492 of this so called Administrator approaching an editing dispute the way a US Marine approaches a foreign beach. Naturally, it is already unclear if he sees his role in this conflict as an editor or and Administrator. He doesn't care. He has countless breaches of WP:INVOLVED in his history.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Drmies

Post by CrowsNest » Mon Aug 20, 2018 10:47 am

What was the purpose of this page? I wouldn't have nominated it for deletion if it had had a clear purpose related to editing Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Fuck me. Do I even really need to explain that it is not Wikipedia policy to put stuff up for deletion just because you don't know what it is? It is Wikipedia policy to ASK FIRST.

That this so called Administrator doesn't know that, and nobody else seems to care, or does but are too frightened of him to correct his behaviour, gives a good indication of why Wikipedia is on a death spiral.

Those who think Wikipedia can be reformed, need to really explain how you deal with Administrators like Drmies. And specifically Drmies, because he is that bad, then if it works in him, it will work on all of them.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Drmies

Post by CrowsNest » Sat Aug 25, 2018 5:05 am

It's time for another edition of that popular game, 'Wait, Which User Is The Admin?'.

The following occurs after an IP user tried to PROD the article on the Southern Ocean. Not a smart idea, but the logic was sound, since the article cannot really claim to be about a recognised thing, when most of the introduction explains how people don't consider it a thing, or can't agree on what it is, if it is a thing.

As is his way, apparently never ever learning his lesson from all the other times he makes this mistake, Drmies chose to respond to this with a highly inappropriate templated warning message for the user....
August 2018

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Southern Ocean. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
I have to quote the whole exchange that followed, on the article talk page, because it is fucking awful from top bottom, as usual from Professor Fuckstick.
False accusations of vandalism by User Drmies

ATTN Drmies: My edit was not "Vandalism" it is a serious proposal. There is no such ocean as the Southern ocean, even the article itself admits that no authoritative body officially recognizes it. An ocean cannot be surrounded by water and be considered a seperate ocean. Please refrain from making unwarranted and irresponsible accusations of "vandalism". i would have replied on your talk page but apparently you protect it from comments, shutting down discussion of heavy handed tactics and accusations on your part. If you don't agree with my proposal, give a real reason, don't just falsely cry "vandalism". I am no vandal and I am offended. 73.61.8.68 (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Aw boohoo. I sorry. And sorry for the talk page too--Nazi trolls, you know. Anyway, I'm no big fan of the CIA, but this seems to be a frequently accepted source on Wikipedia. So yeah, your opinion doesn't hold much water. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

There is no need to be flippant and disrespectful. I guess the Nazis must have had a time machine to be trolling you from last century. Judging from other comments on this very talk page, my "opinion" is far from unusual, it's hardly controversial to dispute the existence of a newly minted "ocean" that is physically impossible. You may not agree, but to pretend my position is somehow trolling or outrageous is disingenuous 73.61.8.68 (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey, if you can't take the heat, get out of the cooking room. You spout bullshit about my supposedly "shutting down discussion", I'll call you out for unsubstantiated whining. Tell you what, nominate it via WP:AFD and I promise I'll stay out of it, I'll just watch from the sidelines. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

it isn't unsubstantiated whining to object to being labeled as a vandal or a troll by someone too lazy or arrogant to deign to actually debate legitimately. Since i am an IP user, your labeling me as a vandal, had i not responded like this, would have tainted my reputation. character assassination basically. on wikipedia we aren't supposed to "take the heat", its meant to be a civil website. 73.61.8.68 (talk) 01:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, read your own links before you assume they support your position. here is a quote from your "source" " It should be noted that inclusion of the Southern Ocean does not imply recognition of this feature as one of the world's primary oceans by the US Government." Seems like your link proves my point.73.61.8.68 (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

...lesigh...no, you said "This "ocean" doesn't exist, it simply consists of parts of other, real oceans. This supposed ocean is completely surrounded by water, making it naturally part of the surrounding bodies". You didn't say "propose deletion because the US government does not necessarily recognize it". But whatever. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

if it doesnt even matter to you if the article is even factually correct, and rely on nitpicking in your defense, why do you even care to defend the article from deletion? what value does a false article hold to this website? 73.61.8.68 (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
It really is ridiculous that there is no way to force Drmies to have to justify crap like this, with his Admin status on the line.

He just gets away with it, day after day.

User avatar
AndrewForson
Sucks Critic
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 7:56 am

Re: Drmies

Post by AndrewForson » Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:50 am

As I may have said before, it's a category mistake to read these comments as if they actually meant something about writing encyclopaedias. They mean only and axactly one thing: "I have more hit points in this game than you so I win". Anything else is mere persiflage, and has about as much connection with reality as discussing whether the ogres in Warhammer live north or south of the vampires.

In particular, the phrase "not here to build an encyclopedia" needs careful understanding. Wkipedia is not, cannot be, and never will be an encyclopaedia. Nobody in the game is there to build an encyclopaedia (although it's possible that some of them think they are). When long-term high-status players use it about newer lower-status players, what they mean is simply and nothing but "inferior".

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Drmies

Post by CrowsNest » Sat Aug 25, 2018 12:33 pm

:?:

Having been prompted by another thread, has anyone thought to consider whether the only reason Drmies ran for ArbCom, was to gain CheckUser privileges, which are automatically bundled with the office and never rescinded? He has CheckUser powers right now, as I type, and he is making highly active use of it.

It makes sense given a few really obvious things about the man.....

* Drmies is the last person you think of when picturing someone who wants to selflessly serve the community as a wise and diligent judge spending hours of their free time in Wikipedia on activities that don't involve blocking users or hacking at articles, and who is guaranteed to be criticised whatever they do

* He baled out of the role at the first available opportunity, declining to stand for a second term (and Drmies' arrogance would prevent him resigning)

* As he freely admits, his lack of technical proficiency (and also probably his vengeful temperament) would have meant he was unlikely to gain the tool by conventional means (although tbf, it was no barrier to him becoming an Arb....)

* He likes intimidating people, and what is more intimidating on Wikipedia than the spectre of the shadowy Officers who have access to the sacred and sekrit Private Data? And what is less conducive to a Wikipedia Administrator's unfettered ability to intimidate editors, than holding the office of Arbitrator? It certainly made him tone it down a notch, to his clear annoyance

* He is paranoid as fuck, so would surely relish the opportunity to have direct access to the logs of who is examining his own Private Data without his knowledge

User avatar
Dysklyver
Sucks Critic
Posts: 391
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:14 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: Drmies

Post by Dysklyver » Sat Aug 25, 2018 12:58 pm

CrowsNest wrote:* He is paranoid as fuck, so would surely relish the opportunity to have direct access to the logs of who is examining his own Private Data without his knowledge


The stewards, foundation staff and some other busybodies can all checkuser him on login-wiki (the global CU function) without it showing in logs he can see. This global tool was used Over 20,000 times this year alone.

And whenever he edits wikidata, meta, etc, those wiki's CU staff can nosy at his details also without him knowing.

Now someone needs to tell him this and watch his paranoia go up x10. :lol:
Last edited by Dysklyver on Sat Aug 25, 2018 1:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Drmies

Post by CrowsNest » Sat Aug 25, 2018 1:06 pm

Dysklyver wrote:
CrowsNest wrote:* He is paranoid as fuck, so would surely relish the opportunity to have direct access to the logs of who is examining his own Private Data without his knowledge


The stewards, foundation staff and some other busybodies can all checkuser him on login-wiki (the global CU function) without it showing in logs he can see.

And whenever he edits wikidata, meta, etc, those wiki's CU staff can nosy at his details also without him knowing.

Now someone needs to tell him this and watch his paranoia go up x10. :lol:
It is a nice thought. Do we think Stewards or WMF give enough of a shit about what Drmies does, to do it though? I don't think they do. If they did, he'd have been busted years ago. No private data has ever been needed to show he is a serial violator of both the Terms of Use and several global community policies. And yet he is unharmed. No, he wisely fears what all wise Wikipedians fear, their peers and underlings, their fellow Orks and Hobbitses, not the Wizards and Elves that rarely stray into the Shire, much less Mordor.

Post Reply