Another day, another example of Drmies not only getting away with flagrantly violating policy, but laughing at the very idea it even applies to him (and plenty sycophants joining him in the fun too)....
Civility
Not trying to be too picky, but I wanted to remind you that WP:NPA says "The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user." meaning that you probably should not call vandals "swine" at you did when you blocked User:108.253.174.57. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
You are being too picky. Given what that editor was trying to do I though "swine" was quite courteous. But thank you for chastising me on my talk page! I really enjoy being mansplained what I can and cannot do. *I'm getting too old for this* Drmies (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Define "mansplained" Tornado chaser (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)(talk page stalker) Google says it's explaining something in a condescending manner. SQLQuery me! 02:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Meh, who needs Google? We have an article on the subject. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Quoting the article, "explaining without regard to the fact that the explainee knows more than the explainer." A hypothetical example might be explaining basic Wikipedia policy to an active admin and former member of Arbcom. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Note "former". I don't envy those folks, by the way. I wonder if they're already done with the WW2 thing. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to send this to any women he tries to portray himself as a feminist to in future. I may even send it to his wife, but not sure I want to explain the context to a civilian. Would she divorce him for being an asshole? It hasn't happened yet.
It may even be worth the effort of trying to package it in civilian terms so I can unleash it on the Twittersphere. #NotYourWord
Reminding a hairy-arsed bald [no insult fits here that isn't a bad word for a man or woman's privates, which is ironic] what he has so clearly forgotten himself, is not and never will be, mansplaining. Not even if Drmies was a woman, and the person doing the reminding here, was a man. They don't identify, so they could be a woman, albeit it would be odd they didn't know what mansplaining is - maybe they were setting a trap for him, but just never sprang it? It is a risk, outing yourself as a woman on Wikipedia.
I've said it many times before, but for the benefit of this Neanderthal, the specific civility requirement this user reminded him of, does not exist to spare the feelings of bad people (that would be dumb), it exists because doing something like this......
00:49, 6 August 2018 Drmies (talk | contribs) changed block settings for 108.253.174.57 (talk) with an expiration time of 07:41, 7 August 2018 (anon. only, account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (swine don't need talk page access)
.....tends to only increase the likelihood of further disruption to Wikipedia. And makes them look like childish [again, wow] children?
I'm of course referring to the innappropriateness of the insult, not the protection, although protecting an IP's talk page is of questionable utility too, but at least he remembered not to block it indefinitely. Good boy.
Rather hilariously, it took him two attempts to actually set the block/protection correctly. Maybe he was angry, this male brained pig of a specimen, and that fight reflex is maybe what causes him to incorrectly mash the buttons in moments like this (he makes a lot of these sort of errors). But it did at least prove that he had six minutes to reflect on the appropriateness of that edit summary, and kept it. Not that there is now any doubt he thinks it is appropriate, and anyone who quite rightly disagrees, can apparently fuck off away from his talk page.
This is a real flaw of Wikipedia. Their diseased quasi-Medieval culture really is to make people feel like they should be utterly apologetic in having to remind (former) Arbitrators of their responsibilities, questioning themselves if it is even civil to do so. I've known women who would happily deliver this reminder with a little more forcefulness. No-one who would be so self-hating and repressed as to willingly put up with Wikipedia. Not with people like Drmies around.
Can you imagine a Universe where this arrogant pig of a mall cop is even remotely embarrassed at needing to be reminded of a simple thing like this? No, me neither. I really do feel for his wife. She surely can't take him anywhere. Drmies and his giggling fanboys would surely find condescension in any form of words used to remind him of this simple requirement, this easy to follow principle.
Nobody's counting on Wikipedia I'm sure, not worth the intimidation or the tantrums, or the sheer pain in the ass of trawling his page history, but I think he has had quite a few perfectly legitimate civility warnings this year already. No wonder he was more than a bit tetchy on getting yet another one.
Maybe there should be an official log somewhere, if Wikipedia really wants to take the view that former Arbitrators are released from their obligation to be shining beacons of good behaviour, to slide (ooze?) back down to regular multi-warning deserving asses, as he seems to think should be the case. Sweet gig, if so. He did a pretty easy turn at the bench, and now gets to claim the status and experience of an Arbitrator, while actually having learnt nothing from it. Nothing honourable anyway.
How this guy got tenure, I will never know. Well, I do know, he pointed to his Wikipedia work as evidence he was a smart boy. Obviously not to stuff like this though. I could teach a ten year old the ethical and practical concepts involved here. And they can certainly use computers better than this oaf. Does that make this post tensplaining I wonder....
Understanding Drmies is certainly easier when you picture him as a ten year old boy. One who had a very bad upbringing of course.