Drmies

[CrowsNest]

Funny on so many levels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_161#Fit_in_or_fuck_off

Remember, this is the guy who opposed Fram because he couldn't tell the difference between constructive criticism and righteous warfare.

[JuiceBeetle]

Funny on so many levels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_161#Fit_in_or_fuck_off

FIFO: Wikipedia does not need you - Drmies essay, the press-approved version

[Guido den Broeder]

Vigil-ant only now found this, where Drmies and Iridescent both proclaim that Fram was right to call me a pedophile, except for using the actual word, Drmies further illustrating his hatred for me with the word 'fucking'. Everybody there thinks that's totally fine.

[Graaf Statler]

It was linked on WO, I had read and noticed that before too.
And the huge scandal is that Drmies guy is Dutch and simple have to now what we know about Fram, Guido.
For sure he knows what a fraud that Fram guy is. If you claim such a terrible thing, you have to prove it with hard evidence or simple have to shut up.

[CrowsNest]

Vigil-ant only now found this, where Drmies and Iridescent both proclaim that Fram was right to call me a pedophile, except for using the actual word, Drmies further illustrating his hatred for me with the word 'fucking'. Everybody there thinks that's totally fine.

Yup. Finding a way to say it without saying it, is their idea of civility. All too readily accepted behaviour.

[Graaf Statler]

MIes: I am a professor and Guido the F Broeder.

And not I was complete wrong with Guido, it appeared Fram is a convicted cocaine smuggler who was editing from a Belgium prison. Sorry Guido.

Because that is what I should expect from a professor. Just as I want to say now sorry for sometimes misinterpretation of your personalty by me in the past Guido, but sometimes the whole situation was very confusing.

But anyway my excuses, Guido.

Martin

[CrowsNest]

Clearly asking too much of this guy to answer a novice's question without including all his baggage.....

Concise
Hi, Drmies. I have a question: Do articles in Wikipedia need to be concise? --Manwë986 (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely--unless they're about K-pop or crimes, or Star Trek, D&D, the War in Syria, anything to do with Trump, the Hong Kong protests. In other words, anything covered by detractors of NOTNEWS or fans of something. Yes, good articles are concise and have no more detail than required. But that's just my opinion. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Did he even answer the question satisfactorily? Absolutely is an answer I suppose, but hardly one the user can refer back to in an editing dispute, or just for general information. It's an interesting question - what policy or guideline (or even information page) best explains/describes the need/aim/requirement that Wikipedia articles be concise? I doubt Drmies even knows. I don't either, not without diving into the rabbit warren, but it's not my job to answer novice's questions about Wikipedia to the best of my ability (even if that means handing them off to someone who can answer). I suspect this is Drmies' view of his role too.

[JuiceBeetle]

Did he even answer the question satisfactorily?

He's saying something funny, so people don't complain, but distracting and of little value. That's a troll answer: trolls want nothing more, just to have some fun at the expense of serious, hard-working people. That's Drmies. As Larry Sanger said: "the trolls came in and took over".

[TMC1982]

I was once editing on this article concerning box office bombs. And Drmies decided to drastically edit the summaries that I made to literally a single sentence each. When attempted to revert the edits and complain that the edits that he made didn't provide enough of a context, he snapped back by immediately threatening me with a block. This was despite his own edits being unreasonable and him not trying to be reasonable or willing to discuss a compromise.

[Kumioko]

The problems with Drmies are long and to comprehensive to list here without wring a wall of words. However my assessment is that he represents the worst kind of admin. He's let the power go to his head, believes himself to not only be infallible but above reproach and although he does very little of actual value for wikipedia, his own ego tells him otherwise.