Drmies

[CrowsNest]

More excellent community service. Three policy violations in one single edit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =858544169

1. Violation of WP:AGF by reverting an edit simply because it's purpose wasn't clear to you (whatever happened to asking?)

2. Marking not-minor edits as minor (unsurprisingly goes against WP:MINOR)

3. Abuse of WP:ROLLBACK

Bonus points for reverting edits to category space, when he has previously admitted he knows jack shit about the Wikipedia category system, so he wouldn't know a good edit from a bad one regardless of whether it was explained or not.

He really knows how to serve the community, doesn't he? What a trooper. SOMEONE GIVE THIS GUY A MEDAL.

Do they do Long Service Retard Stars, ideally with bars etc?

[Bonerchamp]

Im surprised no one caught onto Steph at AUM

[CrowsNest]

Oh professor This is embarrassing even for someone whose standards are as low as yours...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =858804477

That's right, he hacked out an entire section titled "Opinion on globalization" sourced to an opinion piece he wrote for the Washington Post. Why might that opinion be worthy of note? Well, it might have something to do with the fact this guy has on his CV the past roles of.....
1. Chief Economist of the World Bank
2. US Treasury Secretary
3. President of Harvard University

Not only was this a classic hack, Drmies style, it's worth noting the explanation.......

rm per WP:FART

That essay, titled in the classic childish fashion familiar to Wikipedia's operating manual, tells us that.....

just because a piece of trivial information was printed in a newspaper or gossip magazine, or on a website, there is no requirement for it to be included on Wikipedia. Keep in mind not every fart or burp is notable.

Nice. Not remotely applicable, but when does anything this utter turbo turd do on Wikipedia ever make sense? As usual, nobody noticed, much less cared.

Not to mention the fact Drmies calling this guy's opinion nothing but a fart, will now be a permanent feature of his page's edit history (which is, of course, a quasi-legal record).

Wikipedia is a complete joke, and nothing illustrates it more than this guy. AND HE MADE IT ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP. One of their best models. Top of the line. Can talk and everything.

[sashi]

Drmies wants us to study wiki-grammar. Unlike Drmies, most users are breaking the rules of AE speech when they post after a close.

Also, Drmies... "If I had been you, I'd have had someone else close" is correct. Counterfactuals are admittedly tricky.

[CrowsNest]

Already noted from you mentioning it at your other home. Traitor. You know we got first dibs in Drmies dirt. Respect the territorial lines, my continental island hopper, or be just another statistic in the gang warfare.

(extra safety smilies to cover any implied threats that may be seen in the above - )

[CrowsNest]

What a surprise. Drmies has reopened the AE report, using the pretext that one other administrator added a post-script. This is, of course, a blatant violation of this 2015 ArbCom ruling....

Dismissing an enforcement request is an exercise of judgment and therefore constitutes an enforcement action. As such, once a request has been dismissed by an uninvolved administrator, it may not be reopened.

In these cases, any interested users may, after discussion with the administrator in question, appeal the dismissal to the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, but care should be taken that this only be done when appropriate. Petitioners who forum shop by resubmitting denied enforcement requests without good reason may find themselves cautioned or sanctioned in return.

And Drmies, or course, just dismissed the person pointing it out as nothing but a troll who wants to create discord. As he always does whenever he is caught red handed. He knows no other way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =860204712

The reason Drmies really should stop throwing shade at Sandstein, is because Sandstein obviously knows this reopening is a blatant and obvious violation of AE policy, and Drmies's self justification is beyond pathetic given that decision was only handed down as a result of another cowboy Administrator doing exactly this, and justifying himself in exactly the same way (there is disagreement so more debate is needed, until I get the outcome I wanted).

Rather than totally fuck Drmies in the ass by reporting him, which is exactly what Drmies and his psycho friend Malik would assume he would do, based on their past character assassination attempts, Sandstein chose a much milder way to express his dissatisfaction......

@Drmies and AGK: If either of you believe that action is warranted, then please take action rather than just talk about it. This is not a discussion board, and we do not need or care about consensus. I note that this thread was reopened by Drmies, which is fine by me, but only if actual action is now taken promptly. Sandstein 08:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

[Graaf Statler]

Drmies, Drmies, glad he is in America and let them keep them that idiot! I wish America all the luck with this "professor"!

[CrowsNest]

Jesus......

Username question
I wonder what y'all think, whether User:Untitled.docx is a username violation or not. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

......

I wouldn't think so, per Ansh666. But why here and not WP:RFC/N? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Never heard of it before, Ivanvector... Drmies (talk) 01:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I guess we can add username blocking to the growing list of stuff Drmies does on Wikipedia without ever having read the manual.

It's bad enough that he does it, it is contemptible given he is very prone to insulting people for not reading the manual before they do something.

[Graaf Statler]

Doxxing is of course a painful subject for our Drmies. Hiding behind a nick like Drries or Natuur12 did looks safe, but that is stupide. Because there is always someone to dox you and to fuck you up, believe me. And I still wonder what fait it was he just fuckt up the son of a old professor English because our Drmies was so extreem supide to believe a MyGenelogy page because a few autistic Dutch wiki fools did.
But the result is amazing I have to say.

Je krijgt het niet bij elkaar verzonnen, is het niet Michel? Het gaat werkelijk elk begrip te boven, zo een verhaal zou je niet verzonnen krijgen.
Je had email eens moeten lezen van Edo toen ik hem een mail van mij met mijn paspoort in mijn hand, mijn inschrijving in de kamer van koophandel en een foto van die villa met dubbele garage stuurde, ik dacht dat ie ter plekke dood bleef. Maar, maar, hier klopt iets niet, want jij bent toch doooood? Je bent gestorven toen je viertien jaar oud was! Waarom heb je ons altijd van die sterke verhalen verteld?
En toen ging hij heel stoer doen. En verdikkeme alles bleek waar te zijn wat ik ooit verteld had. Inclusief die dure advocaat die ik goed bleek te kennen...

[CrowsNest]

Someone filed an arbitration request against Drmies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =860881039

It didn't have a chance in hell of being accepted, but even though he knew that, his reaction was telling. He greeted the first notification with sarcasm and confusing nonsense. He toned it down for the response before the court, but the rudeness, sarcasm and attempted intimidation was all still there. After which he returned to his talk page to deliver another salvo of rudeness plus much more besides, emotional blackmail basically. Oh, and he also canvassed for support at the Administrator's noticeboard.

This is what must piss ordinary editors off. How many times have they seen someone dragged to ArbCom on weak charges, only to have their own reaction to and conduct during, added to the docket. Or seen the Arbitrators go on their own fact finding missions to see if there is anything of concern out there that is vaguely similar to the charges placed.

Because let's be clear, as weak as the request was in matters of substsnce, the charges will be eerily familiar to anyone who studies this asshole. Namely that he is hasty, ill-considered, flippant, opaque and generally a net negative. And resorting to canvassing and emotional blackmail for a non-event like this just shows what level he'd likely stoop to if he really thought he was in any serious danger of being held to account.

The Arbitrators have no excuse here, people have every right to see this as a failure on their part, a missed opportunity. Being seen sharing a joke with the accused is likely the last straw for some, although they will wisely not dare to let anyone know Drmies getting away with it yet again, is the reason they finally left Wikipedia.