View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Tue Oct 15, 2019 7:53 am




Reply to topic  [ 308 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 31  Next
Drmies 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 3:54 pm
Posts: 472
Reply with quote
I really can't say anything nice about Drmies. He is the typical type of Wikipedia administrator that does almost nothing of actual value to the project yet seems to believe that because he is an admin, the rules do not and should not apply. He is the perfect example of the hostile workplace enablers that need to be purged.


Wed Apr 11, 2018 6:13 pm
Profile
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4140
Reply with quote
What an asshole. Casual readers would have no idea this is the same guy who regularly gives native English speakers dog's abuse about the quality of their writing or structure of their articles.....
Quote:
Eric, when you have a moment, would you mind looking over this? I'm about to put it up for DYK, but a. you know my prose isn't the best and b. if I translate from Dutch my prose gets even worse. I'm also not entirely convinced of the proper organization (and sectioning), not really having written many such articles before, and I suffer from a relative dearth of information. Your help is, as always, appreciated. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
They'd have no clue what he means by this either.....
Quote:
A reminder to Prüm, from one "foreigner" to another: I am both a scholar and an info-warrior at the same time. It's more fun that way. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 00:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Loosly translated, it means that despite regularly lecturing people over what Wikipedia is, and what Administrators are, in his case, it is very much a case of do as I say, not as I do.

For reference, this was Prum's comment....
Quote:
Allow me, as a foreigner who can claim a certain understanding of the topic discussed and has made (slight) acquaintance with both editors, to comment on the case. Both editors may have their merits and errors, but I see both as contributing essentially in good faith. My take on the matter is that K.e.coffman has, for reasons I don't wish to speculate about - except perhaps in private - singled out but one editor he feels uncomfortable with. The root of the matter goes much deeper, as he must be aware of, considering his latest Bugle article. While steps must certainly be taken to put the history of the so-called Third Reich, as presented on this particular wiki, into proper perspective, one cannot go about this in an incoherent way, as I find is the case here. LargelyRecyclable has made valuable contributions to articles on the topic and I see no other way but for K.e.coffman to acknowledge that he made a mistake in attacking this particular editor ahead of all others who bear responsibility for the sad state of affairs. I am available for further questions. --Prüm (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Abstract: You cannot be both a scholar and an info-warrior at the same time, so take your pick. --Prüm (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Drmies' participation in the growing dispute between proper historians and revisionist/amateur historians, as seen on Talk:Panzer ace, was of course not to address the content or sources (save a half-assed mention of finding no hits on Jstor), it is to wind up the opponent until they do something he can block them for, or rather get some co-conspirator like Tony Balloni to block them on his urging. This is the warrior he speaks of. A disgusting excuse of a human being, masquerading as someone nobly fighting for the truth.

Using Drmies as a prime example of what you can get away with as a Wikipedian if you simply lack the morals not to do it, and especially if you misrepresent yourself as a scholar, can anyone really argue it is wrong to advocate real world consequences for such people? It is so, so, blatant, but only for those who take the time to study it. It is beyond arrogance.


Fri Apr 27, 2018 3:53 am
Profile
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4140
Reply with quote
Drmies is still trying hard to win the Wikipedia Asshole of the Year Award.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 65#2004-05

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... :Messiteca
Quote:
If I understand it correctly this is the career goals for Lionel Messi, with no encyclopedic future.
What the fuck is this then, you moron?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_i ... no_Ronaldo

Explain the distinction......and remember, your usual 'noted in secondary sources' definition of encyclopedic merit won't apply, as they cover both sets of stats, extensively.
Quote:
Delete, and ensure Messiteca understands that not being here can be grounds for blocking him. His 1200 edits with only five to maispace is not acceptable. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm working rigth now. Please, give me some time to read this new rule and reply to this later.
Please give me some time to read everything and do not be taliban to make a decision or behave. I will answer on this subject in a few hours. Thanks for understanding

Well, this is not a new rule AT ALL, Messiteca,and throwing in a "taliban" reference is completely tasteless. Don't do that again. BTW we don't typically block for NOTHERE unless there's some kind of disruption or a clear abuse of Wikipedia. A handful of good-faith edits is all that it takes to sway me that such a block is unnecessary, but we can't have this kind of content. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
It's not a rule at all, you stupid fuck. Because you Wikipediots have no backbone, NOTHERE has been variously described as an "information page" and an "explanatory supplement". Blocking someone for violating it, or blocking someone for having an insufficient main space edit ratio alone, is only acceptable because Admins are corrupt shits. It has no policy basis.

As for the Taliban comment, we all know you don't apply this standard to your friends, like Eric Corbett, who unlike this user would know fine well such comments are unacceptable (and would not have the issue of the language barrier that this one seemingly does), so don't be a cock and pretend like this is an issue of your own personal taste. This is you trying to bully and provoke an inexperienced user. You should have a nice little think about just what it is that led him to see what you were doing, and think Taliban.

It says everything about the state of Wikipedia that it is deemed acceptable that someone with this editor's record of edits like this....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =518461117

....is still expected to show these assholes they are trying to improve Wikipedia.

They couldn't even make their minds up whether his page was eligible for speedy deletion or not. They are the ones who lack competence and have questionable motives, not someone who was evidently trying to compile statistics for eventual conclusion in a Wikipedia article, or at the very least, to help ensure the statistics already in it were accurate.

Hopefully his treatment has persuaded him that Wikipedia, or at least the English version, isn't worth bothering with, because it is run like the Taliban.


Thu May 10, 2018 11:25 am
Profile
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4140
Reply with quote
Quote:
Consider John Major. Twenty years after he left office and went into mostly-retirement, can we not assess his legacy?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I think we can and it won't take long. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
So why don't you then, you pompous ass?

The current article's Legacy section is sourced to weighty pieces like this......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/n ... 593554.stm

....which I grant you, wouldn't take long to summarise, or as seems to have been the case, plagiarise. But given it is from 2008, it is well out of date for the surmised task.

This is Drmies all over. Regularly talking a good game about what Wikipedia is and can do, while ignoring the fact it is currently shit, and he is a big part of the reason why.


Tue May 22, 2018 12:04 pm
Profile
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4140
Reply with quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =842982099

Not for the first time, we see Bbb23 protecting Drmies, and in the process Drmies getting away with behaviour that ordinary editors wouldn't. Highlight is Drmies edit warring due to seeing a personal attack on himself in "I'm glad I got you to actually do work to improve this article". I think we all know this is mild compared to what he routinely says to others, not does it remotely meet the level of asshollery that he has previous defended from the likes of Eric Corbett. Not to mention this was the culmination of him trying to force use of a tag in a way that would have seen Eric scratching his eyes out in the same circumstances.

This farce is exactly the sort of hypocritical, arrogant, hot headed, insulting and battling behaviour that Drrmies is known for, and it is all being excused by him and his mates in the usual way. As if to make it even more obvious what he was doing, Bbb23 shut that report down barely two hours after Drmies had told the complainant to "fuck off".

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =842972312

Coincidentally, Drmies was only very recently reminiscing about that time Bbb23 had to "stick his neck out" to protect him not just with a move like this, but with an actual unblock. The commentary surrounding that event is illuminating. It very much illustrates how these two see themselves as above everyone else, capable of both determining their own intent and the appropriate sanctions.

Some people would call this corruption. On Wikipedia, it is called Tuesday.


Sat May 26, 2018 4:46 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 3421
Reply with quote
Drmies? Our scholar of Old English language and literature, who specializes in the study of medieval poetry, and associate professor in the Department of English & Philosophy at Auburn, a 100% Dutch export product? Arb and Sysop at WP-NL? Give me a break.
I know a perfect place for him. Here.

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Sun May 27, 2018 3:22 am
Profile
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4140
Reply with quote
Quote:
Haha, many people don't know "ape" here was a slur for black people? Come on Wikid77--I know people like to make fun of Americans, but we're not THAT dumb. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Maybe not that dumb, but it was pretty dumb of this so called professor of literature at a so called university in deepest darkest USA not to realise that the American interpretation of "sonny boy" isn't shared in the rest of the English speaking world. Specifically, England.

















Image


Thu May 31, 2018 4:25 pm
Profile
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4140
Reply with quote
Wtf?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =844783242

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =844783428

Quote:
04:12, 7 June 2018 Drmies (talk | contribs) changed block settings for EmilyLovesCats (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (trolling, CU-confirmed)
Quote:
Longhair, I'm terribly sorry for blocking you: I was aiming for some little troll and somehow missed. I see from your block log that this is not the first time: I hope the one who did that to you last time feels as badly as I do! (For the record, I was aiming at EmilyLovesCats, confirmed by CU and now trolling on the talk page.) Sorry... I owe you a beer, or some article edits. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
The publicly available backstory is quite detailed, but once you review it, you can't plausibly come up with any other conclusions than these.......

1. Confidentially logged CU data supporting this block was available to any CU since 5 June (as a result of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... tlineBling), and Drmies managed to look it up between 04.07 and 04.12 on 7 June

2. No such data was available, Drmies used his own CU powers to obtain it in that same timeframe, to support the block

3. No such data was available prior to Drmies' block, and Drmies has falsely claimed it exists/ed in that timeframe, to support his block

There are other, much less plausible scenarios, and it would be quite entertaining to see Drmies try to advance them, let alone with proof. I naturally will not assist him by letting him now what they are.

My personal view of Drmies means that for me, the highest likelihood of each scenario is ranked 3, 2, 1. Others may take a different view. What's worth noting is that due to nobody, least of all Drmies, publicly saying such CU data existed prior to 04.12, you can only really take Scenario 3. off the table if you have implicit trust in the word of Drmies, or someone you trust tells you the confidential log entries exist to support scenario 1. or 2.

I will leave it to others to see if they want to make the necessary enquiries, or at least attempt to. I've seen enough to know that in this scenario, you're only ever either going to be told that you must trust Drmies, or trust someone who you probably can't trust wouldn't tell a lie if it meant Wikipedia or Drmies personality weren't going to suffer serious negative consequences if the truth were known.

And as a final thought, even if scenario three is satisfactorily disproved, which it won't be, scenarios 1. and 2. still demonstrate multiple serious failings regarding Drmies and his ability to follow proper proecedure, or even basic common sense. Whether acting alone or in concert with Bbb23, they show that they really don't understand how actual sock/trolls work. They do not go away simply because you tell them to, and they certainly don't if the manner you get rid of them is such that eventually, a perfectly innocent user whose actions are mistaken for trolling/disruption, is going to have legitimate grounds for complaint. Grounds which, if not taken seriously, might just turn them into a sock/troll as well.


Thu Jun 07, 2018 5:37 am
Profile
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4140
Reply with quote
Quote:
And "should not be deleted without a proper AfD, as more sources may be provided in the course of the discussion" is nonsense: it invalidates the entire PROD system. There's nothing wrong with removing a PROD, but using a nonsensical argument is disruptive and begs the question of competence. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it's rude to act in a disruptive manner against policy, for the PROD thing...... Drmies (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

"...because deletion discussions sometimes lead to additional sources being provided" is an invalid argument. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
The only person here showing incompetence, and it leading to disruption, is Drmies. As a matter of policy, people can remove a PROD for no reason at all, so it is by definition not disruption to do so. So just shut the fuck up and move onto the next stage, AfD, if you think the removal was invalid.

Don't be throwing your weight around like a bully, inventing offences and making accusations of disruption you know will never hold up.

This definitely isn't the first time Drmies has been told something like this......
Quote:
Drmies, I am not sure this ever occurred to you, but if you place rude or aggressive comments on people's talk pages, that tends to provoke rude or aggressive responses, even responses that might potentially be ruder or more aggressive than the comment that provoked them. Surely this isn't really what you want? Please reconsider your approach (this is a polite way of saying that I don't want your comments on my talk page unless you are prepared to practice some basic kind of politeness).
....nor is it the first time his response was to simply ignore it and tell them they're the ones being rude by not following his entirely made up definitions of policy.

His rent-a-bitch Yngvadottir did him a favour and filed the AfD for him though, saving him the hassle of filling out the proper paperwork, and not for the first time. I wonder if she is his real life secretary? Maybe she's his wife. I can't think of any other reason a woman would willingly keep demeaning herself like this.


Fri Jun 08, 2018 5:29 pm
Profile
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4140
Reply with quote
This guy is 100% a walking talking idiot.

Now he's PRODed "The Betz family" because.......
Quote:
Unverified fringey nonsense.
It is unverified (as is approximately one tenth of Wikipedia) but a five second Google search shows that is easily remedied. Reliability of said sources is obviously not a matter for PROD to settle.

What makes me laugh though, is the apparent idea there is actually any page in Category:URL sightings that is considered mainstream, or indeed, not nonsense. A UFO story can be notable, even massively so, but it cannot by definition ever be not fringe.

In contrast to his earlier comments about disruptive use of PROD policy using nonsense arguments, he appears to be trying to purge articles on subjects he doesn't like and doesn't want in his Wikipedia of crap, is giving nonsensical arguments to do so, and is hoping nobody else will notice, or will but just won't care.

People have tried this before in different areas, probably even for UFO stuff, and when caught, it always leads to drama for its non-policy nature, which makes it inherently disruptive to defend. So I will ask again, Wikipediots, how dumb, slapdash and downright embarrassing, does someone have to be, before you take action? Or are you happy to let this freak be advanced as one of your best and brightest?

Fuckwits.


Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:47 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 308 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 31  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group ColorizeIt.
Designed by ST Software.