Everything you need to know about Drmies can be summed up in the revelation that he actually achieved academic tenure in part by pointing the university board to his Wikipedia activities, as if somehow they constitute academic research. He knows they don't, not by a long chalk, but of course he wasn't about to tell them.
Like all Wikipedians, he operates on the principle that knowledge is power, specifically knowledge of how Wikipedia really works, how practice and convention differ from policy and common sense, can be used for personal advantage. As can social bonds and patronage. Basically all those things from feudal times that civilised society dropped as bad ideas, for their inherent capacity to corrupt.
Adherence to policy comes a distant fifth for Drmies, somewhere behind the plaudits to be obtained by playing the race card and abusing Nazis. Because what use a position of power and trust, if you can't give Nazis a kicking from time to time? You can't even punch a Nazi in real life, no matter how much you want to, so Drmies relishes every opportunity to do things on Wikipedia that he cannot do in real life.
He's just that kind of guy, someone who would be an embarrassment to real Wikipedians, if they themselves had the sense to realise their rules and policies governing their behaviour and expected moral standards exist for a reason, one of which is so they don't come across as mindless hypocrites or corrupt sycophants.
For example, in real life, there's no way in hell Drmies would be allowed to sign off on the neutrality of an encyclopedic biography of the Intel CEO, much less use his Administrator tools to silence objections. On Wikipedia, he gets to do that, because he's all powerful, and people know it doesn't pay to point out the elephant in that room - namely that he didn't do anything but a cursory check of the page, and so it is as biased as the disclosed paid editor who wrote the draft Drmies legitimised, intended it to be.
For his crimes, Drmies has of course been slated in venues across the internet. He really doesn't like it. He hates it so much, he does bizarre things likes this incident, previously reported in Wikipediocracy, that so called critic site.....
Unsurprisingly, the dudes defending Drmies on that so called critic site, declined the offer to hold him to account.The other day he indef blocked a user who had made 1 edit, not vandalism just unsourced but sourceable, and he justified it as NOTHERE. The reason? He obviously suspected that "RedditUser9" was one of the people who had been giving him shit on Reddit. There was nothing else to it but the name, the edit itself was innocuous, and if he was using CU data he certainly didn't mention it. That's next level corruption there, since he basically knows nobody will call him out for it, because who does that? Step to the snarky douche Arb for basic and obvious corruption, against a user you don't even know? Either of you feel like you have enough wikistatus to be stepping to your bro to engage in a bit of ADMINACCT?
He also writes nasty messages on his user talk page, for consumption by his fans. Because of course, that's what a Wikipedia user talk page is for.....again, not one person on Wikipedia calls him out for that pathetic, policy violating behaviour.
You'll never see him come out of the protective bubble of Wikipedia and prove all his detractors wrong. He exemplifies the cowardice needed to consider oneself a "Wikipedian". It's basically because if he tried, he'd only prove they are right, and he's got nothing to lose by keeping his head down and pretending like it really could ever be the case that if the Wikipedians themselves aren't calling you out, then there mustn't be anything wrong with you.
Not that they don't try, once in a while. One Wikipedian, a five year veteran iirc, recently tried to call Drmies out on Wikipedia, to the Founder no less. By pointing out his disgraceful standards of conduct, specifically in how he communicates with others, he hoped to avoid another embarassing BWilkins/DangerousPanda saga. For his trouble, he was of course rounded on and subjected to threats and intimidation.
The shock troops (some might say blackshirts) weren't interested in the evidence, except of course to use their Admin powers to delete the page documenting it as an "attack page". This is corruption at its highest. It all passes by uncommented on, with the Wikipedians either agreeing with it, or too shit scared to do anything to stop it.
Like most bad actors on Wikipedia, while they're often cute and try to obfuscate and misdirect, they don't really try to hide what they do, his behavioural violations and abuse of trust/tools hide in plain sight, him being quite confident he is untouchable given his status. Anyone vaguely experienced with Wikipedia will spot the patterns if they just follow him for a while.
He certainly doesn't hide his main area of interest, editing wise - he roams the 'pedia hacking articles to bits, no matter who wrote them or what they contain. He does this because he sees himself as some kind of guardian of Wikipedia's integrity as an encyclopedia (don't laugh). He has been challenged on this, but it's not a pleasant experience, given how difficult it is to get any third party to accept Drmies isn't above lying, let alone all the other tricks, to get his way. So he usually does.
In true Wikipedia corruption fashion, he only really backs down if he is opposed by someone he respects and doesn't really want to run off Wikipedia, as happened at the Goodwood Festival of Speed page. Patronage, see. In these sort of climbdowns, Drmies shows he even lacks the redeeming quality of remaining consistent in his beliefs, regardless of who disagrees.
All of which in a roundabout way brings me to what happened this morning. See, the Wikipedia called Everymorning has for a while taken an interest in glorifying Wikipedians by granting them the honour of a Wikipedia biography. He's not a critic looking to expose misdeeds, he is genuinely doing this because he loves Wikipedia and Wikipedians.
As is his way, evidently he wrote a draft for a biography of Drmies in his sandbox, then posted it to main space, and only then dropped a note to Drmies informing him he was now so honoured. Drmies of course didn't like that much. People knowing who he is, only makes it more likely his Wikipedia corruption will have real world consequences.
So he did what comes naturally. He used his own tools, his own powers granted to him on condition he can be trusted to use them wisely, in his own self-serving interest.
Here are the logs.....
Hiding the FYI note placed on his talk page
The corresponding talk page history.....05:03, 1 March 2018 Drmies (talk | contribs) changed visibility of a revision on page User talk:Drmies: content hidden (Disclosure of non-public identifying or personal information)
Scrubbing all record of the draft....(cur | prev) 04:01, 1 March 2018 Everymorning (talk | contribs) . . (61,898 bytes) (+296) . . (→FYI: new section)
(cur | prev) 05:02, 1 March 2018 Drmies (talk | contribs) . . (61,602 bytes) (-296) . . (Undid revision 828202438 by Everymorning (talk) I appreciate it but I wish you hadn't done that) (Tag: Undo)
And finally deleting the as published biography...05:10, 1 March 2018 Drmies (talk | contribs) changed visibility of 4 revisions on page User:Everymorning/sandbox: content hidden (Disclosure of non-public identifying or personal information)
That log reveals this isn't the first time he has done this.....05:02, 1 March 2018 Drmies (talk | contribs) deleted page Michel Aaij (A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events): subject does not pass GNG or PROF)
A little digging of course revealed Drmies' practicing self interest in that case too....23:06, 4 December 2015 Drmies (talk | contribs) deleted page Michel Aaij (A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
If Drmies doesn't want people to know who he is, he shouldn't include his real name in a personal sandbox, which he presumably uses to monitor for people who need blocking......05:46, 10 December 2015 Drmies (talk | contribs) changed block settings for KIC 8462852 (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Revoking talk page access: inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked: DENY)
23:07, 4 December 2015 Drmies (talk | contribs) blocked KIC 8462852 (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (sock of Coat of Many Colours)
Saving it for posterity, in case he wants to delete it
Thomas F. X. Noble
Lutz von Padberg
Ian Wood (scholar)
Daibhi O Croinin
Achim Thomas Hack
James Palmer (scholar)
Michael Elliot (scholar)
Christopher Landon (scholar)
Heinrich Wagner (scholar)