Wtf?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =844783242https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =84478342804:12, 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)
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.