DYK has of course long been abused for promotional purposes, but I think it pertinent to note there is unlikely to be any financial inducement here, not on Drmies' part.
The quid pro in play is far more sinister.
Only this month I have highlighted that Drmies (promoted to Administrator in 2011) still routinely edit wars to shape articles to his preferred version, and Gerard (2004) is still being so careless in their campaign to remove so called unreliable sources from Wikipedia, their edits are indistinguishable from a poorly coded bot.
I didn't have to look too hard to find this stuff. They aren't mistakes. They are representative of their ordinary editing. Neither are anywhere close to the mythical "higher standard". It informs how they judge others in their important role as Administrators (either judging them by their own low performance, or worse, holding them to a higher standard than they are capable of themselves, or even worse judging them to a higher standard they have no clue they aren't meeting themselves but think they do).
Drmies and Gerard are incredibly alike, both being the classic white middle aged privileged western males whose public virtue signalling diverges wildly from their behaviour. I can say with some confidence, nobody ever won a Noble Peace Prize or became the head of the United Nations by talking bollocks about punching Nazis or ranting about magic beans.
They act tough and they need the power of a stick like being a Wikipedia Administrators because all too often, what they actually have to say about something isn't all that smart or even helpful.
There are only two things that threaten the status of Drmies and Gerard on Wikipedia. This first, is outsiders turning up to ask how people this manifestly incapable of meeting the basic standards, or worse, making the convenient choice not to just because they can, are still Administrators? That avenue was closed off years ago. Wikipedia is a self protecting cult, outsiders shining a light on such things are instantly blocked as NOTHERE.
The far more serious threat from their perspective, is from inside. Bullies they may be, but now and again, an established editor does raise a concern about such things. This is where the social bonds come into play. What this is, is essentially a little bit of monkey grooming between two Wikipedia Alphas. Not sexual. Well, probably not.
Drmies is showing David, have no fear. In the unlikely event someone reports you for careless editing, a haste arising from a "Right Great Wrongs" agenda, Drmies will be there to have your back, good buddy. Say whatever needs to be said. Threaten whoever needs to be threatened. Break whatever rule he needs to.
To show you what I mean, here's an example of a typical Drmies contribution to Wikipedia governance.....
I'm not sure what part of the Admin manual endorses that kind of inflammatory rhetoric, and I am quite sure that without a diff it is a gross personal attack at the least. But alas, it is apparently exactly what the 200+ people who voted for him like about Drmies, hence his huge confidence in doing it, despite barely being out of his Admin short trousers at that point.I consider this editor a master shit-stirrer, which is why I'm bringing it here. For the life of me, I can't imagine why they can't get their kicks elsewhere, and I think it is disruptive that they don't. .... Drmies (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Hilariously, the editor in question (A Quest For Knowledge) is still active, and has accrued precisely the same number of blocks for cause that Drmies has in their long editing career. One. For edit warring, would you believe. In 2010. Maybe he should run for Admin!
The benefits of being an Administrator and the social bonds that underly it, are obvious. Drmies's one and only block was for a highly inflammatory personal attack directed at an Administrator, ScottyWong, one who famously has no friends on Wikipedia and doesn't give a damn, he just does what he need to do to protect Wikipedia. Drmies was rapidly unblocked by Bbb23, who didn't even pretend to offer a reason for doing so. The reason was obvious. Bbb23 was nominated for Adminship by none other than Drmies, who asserted he "knows policies and guidelines". Bbb23 is of course in that rare class of Administrators whose conduct has been so bad that Wikipedia officialdom has actually sanctioned them.
Drmies was thankfully unsuccessful in his effort to have that editor banned from commenting about a very dear friend of Drmies (Eric Corbett), but it suffices to show he tried. Drmies protects his friends. His viscous attack of Scotty was also about defending Eric. Take note, David. Nudge nudge, wink wink.
In return of course, Drmies would hope David sees how Drmies has helped him boost his profile and his coffers with this DYK intervention, and so should the day ever arise that Drmies is reported edit warring, David will hopefully be on hand to say something in his defence. Rather amusingly, I am not so sure this can be counted upon. But beggars can't be choosers.
I think the most hilarious part is that by compromising himself this way, Drmies has to set aside his natural instincts as an editor. The Gerard biography currently includes the following....
That of course is exactly the sort of promotional content Drmries has absolutely no qualms about ripping right out of Wikipedia, when they realise the provided sources are not coming from independent secondary channels. They are literally Parliament publications, the record of the debate and the copy of the report. Neither of which can assign importance to such a thing by themselves so that it might be deemed acceptable content in a biography about someone whose status and bank balance is greatly enhanced by people seeing him as important and influential in his field. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't, but Drmies knows as well as anyone (as does Gerard of course) it isn't for random Wikipedia editors to make such determinations.In 2018, Gerard was consulted by the Treasury Select Committee in the Parliament of the United Kingdom during its inquiry into crypto-assets,[17] and his evidence was cited in its final report.[18]
