User talk:Drmies

"Drmies is the only rational editor here."

Note to self

Category:Articles with a promotional tone from December 2017

Move at Swimming at the 2014 South American Games – Women's 100 metre breaststroke ‎

Hi Drmies (and Drmies' talk page watchers). I'm wondering if someone who is more familiar with page moves might take a look at this edit. I'm not sure the name convention for these types of articles is to use title case capitalization for the race name (at least that doesn't seem to be the case for Category:Swimming at the 2016 Summer Olympics), and it also seems that changing from "metre" to "meter" was not warranted per WP:RETAIN. The article is currently at AfD, so not sure how appropriate it would be just revert the move. Also, I'm going to add that even though this appears to have been done in good faith, the account which did it is only a few days old and appears to be using Twinkle to be focus on lots of administrative/maintenance edits. Perhaps this is not as uncommon as it seems to me, but most "newbies" don't seem to start out like this, do they? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

It's definitely an improper move ("metre breaststroke" is where it should be). Now that the AFD is going, though, it might as well stay there until the discussion is closed, since it's more hassle than it's worth to revert while it's open.

As for the nomination itself, it's not completely out of character (similar events have been redirected to their "parent game"), but in this case it's likely going to be speedy-kept. Primefac (talk) 02:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Thanks Primefac for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Generalizing by ethnicity

Hi again,

Will you please help me?

I remember this edit of yours diff. There you referred to generalizing (by ethnicity, class, gender, etc.) connected with wikipedia editors. If I can interpet your statement, you basically stated that generalisations about wikipedia editors based on their ethnicity are very, very problematic.

I always thought that this kind of generalisation on wikipedia is valid not only for wikipedia editors, but for everybody, including authors of sources used on wikipedia. If they are alive, statements about their involvement with certain political movement might even be violation of WP:BLP?

I frequently encounter generalisations about wikipedia sources, based on the ethnicity of their authors.

I began to question myself and my position having in mind that:

• my report about it at ANI (diff) was ignored
• that many other editors routinelly use the same rationale when they want to discredit some source,

Will you please be so kind to clarify if generalisations about sources used on wikipedia based on the ethnicity of their authors are also very, very problematic? I sincerely apologize if I am wrong with something here.

Best regards,--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm I'm not really sure what you're asking. My comment was in the context of the old "you can't be neutral cause you're Dutch/Serbian/Slav/Yugoslav/Belgian/Flemish" kind of argument--note that I was talking about generalizing, here in terms of motives and neutrality and whatnot.

  The diffs you were pointing at in that ANI report (I wish I had seen it at the time) are invalid but not because of exactly that reason. I suppose we can talk about Albanian sources and Yugoslav sources, if indeed the sources are from those areas when they were countries with those names, etc., but I don't understand that editor's reason at all and unless there's something I'm missing, this is a problematic edit. This, on the other hand ("Serbian authors thought he was a Serb"), is in principle a valid edit summary. I hope that clarifies? Drmies (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

To clarify my question I will use a couple of statements for example:

• "this source is unreliable because it was written by author who is Scot"
• "If you want to write an article about WWI topic you have to use sources written by non-Germans (Russians, British, Italians...)
• "Those sources are unreliable because they were written by the Kurds"

wp:RS says that reliability of some source can be affected by three factors: reliability of the author, work itself and the publisher. It does not mention nationality or ethnicity of authors.

I am simply asking exactly what I wrote. Summarized it goes like this: "Having in mind your statement that generalisations about wikipedia editors based on their ethnicity are very, very problematic I simply asked for your opinion if generalisations about sources used on wikipedia based on the ethnicity of their authors are also very, very problematic"--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah but now you're talking in relation to RS. That's a different thing but even with sources it's complicated. If you write about the Siege of Sarajevo and all you cite are Serbian sources, one might expect that someone will challenge that. But if someone says "you can't be neutral on that article cause you're Serbian", that's problematic, yeah. And no, I wouldn't discredit some article on Sarajevo because the author was a Serb, but it is possible that the article is biased because the author has Serbian sympathies. Or the author doesn't. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I already know that you find generalisations about wikipedia editors are very problematic. Now, I am talking only in relation to RS. Can I conclude that you think that sources are a different thing and that under some circumstances wikipedia editors are entitled to dispute reliability of the source based on the ethnicity of their autor(s)?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but this is very much context-bound, and one is frequently wrong. For instance, typically 19th German Protestant writers don't look kindly on Saint Boniface, and one should take their comments with a grain of salt, and Catholic authors, by the same token, have a tendency to overplay him and his veneration. Yet it's Albert Hauck, a German Protestant, who writes what one might call the first objective assessment of the saint and his work, in 1885. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I really appreciate your effort to write explanation to me but I don't know how to interpret it:

1. The first word of your answer says yes (to my question if wikipedia editors are entitled to dispute reliability of the source based on the ethnicity of their autor(s))
2. then all other words you used to explain why it is context bound and .... frequently wrong, presenting example which completely refutes "yes" answer.

If it is necessary to take care about the context and consider situation case by case, regardless of the ethnicity, then your answer to my question is actually no, isn't it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Your question included the words "under some circumstances", so Drmies answer "Yes, but ..." was exactly what he meant. He did not mean no, or he would have said "No, never, not even under some circumstances". Softlavender (talk) 08:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

My reply pointed to the fact that after but is necessary to consider things regardless of the ethnicity, then your answer to my question is actually no. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

You understand what the word "but" means, right? It means "except". So Drmies did not mean no, he meant "Yes, except for the fact that ...", or or "Yes, but only in some circumstances", or "Yes, except you have to be very very careful". This is because your question deliberately included the phrase "under some circumstances" [1]. If you had not deliberately included that phrase, then his answer might have been something like "Usually not", or "Try to avoid doing it except in rare cases". Softlavender (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand what the word "but" means. But, my question deliberately included the phrase that if after but is necessary to consider circumstances unrelated to the ethnicity, then your answer to my question is actually no. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Then either your logic is faulty or your command of the English language is insufficient to carry on a discussion of fact and logic, because your question has been answered and the answer has been explained twice, and the answer is still the same: Since your question used the phrase "under some circumstances" the answer is "Yes, but ..."; the answer is not categorically "No". If you ask the question again, and omit the phrase "under some circumstances", then the answer will be different. Softlavender (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Let me try a couple of examples. If someone were to say "Antidiskriminator sounds like a German name so obviously all edits the editor makes about WWII are Nazi propaganda", then the person saying that would first be regarded as an idiot (probably your name isn't German anyway), and secondly probably blocked for personal attacks (i.e. being "very, very problematic"). If, instead, someone were to say "Wolfram Wette is German so no books he has written about WWII can be trusted", then the person saying that would first be regarded as an idiot, and secondly reminded about WP:BLP (Wette is still alive), and thirdly eventually topic-banned from that topic area for an inability to make sense. So this second case is only "very problematic", not "very very problematic". One case is about saying silly things about a Wikipedia editor, and one case is about saying silly things about an author of sources. Sorry for the contrived examples, but perhaps it illuminates something? MPS1992 (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and saying silly things about sources (but based on who wrote them) is another step further removed, so perhaps that's only problematic, not even "very problematic". But if people keep making problematic edits, eventually someone will stop them from doing so, I think. MPS1992 (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not quite sure why AD went from discussing people to discussing sources. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn't notice that until I'd already written all those things :) But yeah, if it's not OK about people, then it's not OK about people who write sources, so not OK about the sources that people write. Maybe? MPS1992 (talk) 04:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the actual ANI thing is definitely the last thing that anyone should do, so I just did so. I am completely unclear as to how the diffs there relate to the claims here. Antidiskrininator, what are you on about? MPS1992 (talk) 04:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Beer in Costa Rica

Hi, I just noticed that you removed the list of beer breweries in Costa Rica back in Feb. 2018, and while I agree that Wikipedia is not a directory, I started those lists to keep track of the history of the local scene, and inspired by what I saw on other countries related articles (Beer in Japan and Beer in New Zealand for example). So, I'm somewhat disappointed that our country effort gets wiped so easily, while others stand. Would you remove the other countries' lists, or could we get back the one from Costa Rica, what would be your position? I agree the beer list is not really necessary, but the breweries were nice. Thanks. Roqz (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Roqz, I can't edit every single article. Please remove those kinds of lists anywhere you see them. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Roqz, I looked at a whole bunch of such articles, and very few of them had the kind of directories we're talking about. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

about encyclopedic yeast extracts related to improving the encyclopedia

whoa, you touched beer in Australia? - you must be bad - basic part of diet for lots of obese and diabetes stricken oz personsJarrahTree 00:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Ha, never had one--cause I suppose Foster's doesn't count! Drmies (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The last time this Australian saw a can of Fosters was in the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 03:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I hope it was tasty. I had one of those big cans when I was in college, ages ago. It was better than Bud. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's not saying much... TonyBallioni (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Sssht I was trying to be nice... Drmies (talk) 03:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

There is a gigantic Budweiser brewery about six miles from where I live. Isn't a BLP violation to attack Bud? Ordinary working class people work there, after all. Plus, some Clydesdales perform there a few times a year. So, it could be a BLH violation as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Cullen, I never took you for a Bud Heavy man. It’s better than Natty Light, though. I’ll give it that. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

My main memory of beer in Australia is that it was really, really expensive, like a six pack was 2+ times more than the U.S. or western Europe. Is this because of sin tax or monopolistic business practices or what? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a backlash from Wake in Fright. Yes, the continent is so large that such things take decades. Not that I'm an expert on alcoholic beverages, nor know anything about them at all. I do wonder how the lede of that article avoids mentioning beer or alcohol at all. MPS1992 (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thats fiction, reality is much worse, I was once (a very ling time ag) stuck in Marble Bar, Western Australia - the beer is the only thing to support survival JarrahTree 05:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) I gag every time I even read the words "Vegemite" or "Marmite". Could someone please redact or change the title of this thread? Softlavender (talk) 03:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

what a bunch of gastronomic cretins - to have our secret weapons denied into binomial stupidity yeast extract - - one worded items confuse youall JarrahTree 04:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• (talk page gnome) BTW, nutritional yeast is also great in popcorn. —PaleoNeonate – 05:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Good faith

In the latest comment at Talk:Jordan Peterson, you said that you "don't doubt" my good faith. However, previously you ignored to comment on content instead of editors, ignored to get the point of editing policy, you mocked my understanding of journalism, editing policy, stated it's my ignorance, that I "think that the NYT doesn't publish journalism", also claimed that I "support" the personality. In the last comment you back off saying that it was actually commenting on my "competence", for which article talk pages should not be used for, but your comments, including "win a prize", "ridiculous" etc., don't pass WP:Politeness and WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL. Then you called an administrator to make a review based on your claims about my actions which makes the whole situation even more ridiculous, at least from my perspective, as he claimed things I did not do, seemingly making it WP:SANCTIONGAME. Explain yourself per Wikipedia:Civility#Dealing with incivility.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, your edit summaries ([2], [3]) don't pass "Be careful with edit summaries" and WP:ESDONTS.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) ...how about WP:GIBBERISH :D —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

^ ^ ^ This. Softlavender (talk) 11:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm so you were criticized by two administrators for not understanding something very basic, something pretty much essential to the writing of an encyclopedia. You confused opinion with journalism, you confused primary with secondary, you failed to see the difference between something that has an editorial board and something that doesn't, and after that you accused the NYT editorial board of somehow overlooking an obviously slated piece. Drmies (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• And what, pray tell, is wrong with "summarizing: notable journalist. not an opinion piece. reliable source. not proven to be a controversial opinion (except among apologists, apparently). take it to RSN if you like"? I thought I was writing a pretty neutral, factual, and comprehensive edit summary... :( Drmies (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Concerns Regarding reverts on Brett Kavanaugh

I noticed you recently engaged in a bit of a revert war with User:Kn0w-01 on this article. While I fully appreciate your concerns with the article and acknowledge the edits were quite biased, there are contraversies surrounding it that should, Carefully, be written upon and I feel you may have been slightly aggressive in how you handled the situation. This isn't me going on a tirade that ""you're some fascist republican conspirator trying to silence the people"" or anything. I just was hoping that future situations could be resolved with a slightly more courteous attempt to explain the situation rather than the, frankly, aggressive editing that was made, as well as the fact that both you and the other individual technically violated the WP Sanctions on the article requesting no more than 1 revert per user every 24 hours. Jyggalypuff (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks, but if you fully appreciate those concerns, and you had looked at the other edits by the user who seems intent on making Wikipedia a forum for personal opinions, and if you were fully cognizant of the BLP and the fact that BLP violations are not allowed to stand anywhere at all, you'd be leaving a note on the other user's talk page. I understand that with 144 edits you may not be fully aware of all these ins and outs. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I would be, but they've already been blocked indefinitely and their last revert edit comments were aggressive enough that I can't really argue it was unmerited. That said I am happy to admit I'm less knowledgeable in this than I could be, most of my edit work is mostly just in fleshing out heavily under-trafficked articles that chances are maybe a dozen people will appreciate in the future anyway. Feel free to call me out on it or link me whatever if you think I can learn something for it. As is I only saw the incident because it immediately followed me making a minor edit to a broken ref tag. Jyggalypuff (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Look--the dude inserted, in Wikipedia's voice and without any kind of reference (engineered or not), that the Supreme Court was mostly a bunch of rich people who had no interest in the concerns of ordinary citizens. That may well be true, and I'm biting my tongue here, but there is no way someone should put that in an article, especially not an article that got almost 10,000 page views yesterday. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
      • I meant more so on understanding more on what you felt I didn't understand, either way I fully accept your judgement in this and agree with you that the individual stepped far over the line. Apologies for bringing this to you and I hope you have a lovely day.Jyggalypuff (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
        • You too--thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For stepping in and sorting out that whole Barbara Lerner Spectre nonsense. Brustopher (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Haha, is it really sorted out? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

QUESTION

Why was my sandbox deleted? I was just running a simulation of Drag Race. Nothing wrong w that. If it has to stay deleted can I at least get my results back again so I can move it to Wikia?Nduke24 (talk) 01:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• No, there was something wrong with that: WP:NOTWEBHOST. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

FYI

User:VolteFight is this kid who has been trying to stuff himself onto Wikipedia under various articles. I notice that the last batch of accounts seemed to be sleepers, which isn't his normal M.O. Can you CU to see if there are others? See my recent user page tagging for the last batch. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Gogo Dodo, Drmies isn't an Arb or a CU. Softlavender (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Au contraire Softlavender, it's well known that Drmies is the best checkuser.[4] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

(scratching head) How/when did that happen? I thought arbs relinquished their CUs when they left the arb-sphere. Softlavender (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

We can keep 'em if we're gonna use 'em. Same for OS. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The BEST. And BENEVOLENT. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

And not to forget the Great and Powerful. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• CU-confirmed. I didn't find any more. I can't judge if I should block a range, Gogo Dodo--I'll send you a possibility or two. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
• User:Paramatma Brahma is the next one. GogoDodo, expect another email. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Your comments at Talk:6ix9ine#Rap trivia were like a hammer hitting a nail. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• Ha thanks! A barnstar is much nicer than starting beef. But I guess every genre of Wikipedia article has its own hobbyhorse, its own trivial blind spot. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Query

Is this the same guy as that HarveyMecken3 sock you just blocked?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• I suppose... Drmies (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, so much for that, then. Thank you for your time.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing more to say. Already blocked, and CU revealed no other accounts. I rolled back their edits. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi

Thank you for agreeing with my removal of content in the article Education in Greece, i was the IP user 94.66.222.241 then but i created an account shortly after — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Unknown1 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

I understand why they made you an admin, you're a great editor Mr.Unknown1 (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Reverted edit

In reference to my reverted edit, I believe a more thorough consideration would allow some of my edits to go through. I’m not trying to slant the article to make it sound like the conspiracy theories are true as one user asserts, only make sure referenced material is accurately represented. While some progress has already invalidated part of the reverted changes, the third paragraph states an accuracy I was trying to fix. The declassified documents are also indirectly mentioned in the next paragraph, and a dead url is a dead url. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I just looked at your edit with a fresh pair of eyes, and I have to agree with the revert:

1. You added a {{who}} tag right before the text answered the question of "who?" You couldn't read forward 4 words? Not to mention that the source supports the content: historians in general dismiss the theory that Hitler fled to Argentina (though I will add that the source needs to be replaced with a higher quality one).
2. You changed a quote. Changing a quote is pure dishonesty. We don't ever change or edit quotes unless absolutely necessary, and even then, we always clearly mark what we changed.
3. You made claims about declassified FBI documents that aren't supported by the source.

You broke two of the cardinal rules of WP three times: You put spin on content with your {{who}} tag and you misrepresented sources with both the quote alteration and the FBI claim. I'm sorry, but those do not represent good edits.article ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Just to clear up, I edited the quote to match the source. My other edits had a well-founded reason too, but ah well. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you MPants. UpdateNerd, you can argue this, if you like, but you really have to do that on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Question about Eranrabl/SuperJew

Greetings Drmies, it's been three months since I asked this User_talk:Bbb23/Archive_44#Eranrabl/SuperJew. That's frankly ridiculous for an admin to blatantly ignore a polite request for clarification on the rules, therefore I ask you (as the admin who was behind the unblock request's denial).

I'm wondering, what's going to be the final result of the whole Eranrabl/SuperJew "sockpuppet" situation? I understand that the admins seem content with the status quo, but I'm genuinely curious as to what other steps of mediation could be taken in this issue. I'm curious, did either of the accounts violate WP:BADSOCK? Because I really don't think they did at all. Also, I feel that the reasons given behind the decision seem to contradict several policies. What would stop me from claiming that @Number 57: is also a sock, as he has similarly edited football articles and Israeli ones?

It has been three months and this Julian Assange-esque impasse shows no signs of resolution.

Having both users in purgatory isn't right, nor is it fair. - J man708 (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@J man708: ARBCOM are considering this at present, although very slowly. I emailed them ten days ago about this as I think there's clearly some kind of quirk with Israeli IPs that is making three editors (Eranrabl, SuperJew and the IP that keeps making ethnicity-related edits) appear to be the same person and the behaviour evidence suggests these three editors are not related. I've also pointed out to Arbcom (or at least to BU Rob13) that they're in possession of some facts (ie real names and details both editors have stated on their talk pages) that allow them to see that Eranrabl and SuperJew to be different people in real life. I don't know why nothing has happened yet. Number 57 16:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I've just prodded the Committee on this again. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that's the soccer editors, no? Rob, thank you for prodding, and you too, Number 57. Yeah, all of us will just have to wait, I'm afraid... Drmies (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

What does it mean about the soccer editors, please? MPS1992 (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

? Editors who edit soccer things. Drmies (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. I thought it was a euphemism for something horrific. Assuming that it isn't, which editors are referred to? MPS1992 (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

So, what's the next step? How long does ARBCOM usually take? This seems unnecessarily slow. - J man708 (talk) 02:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, you can email them... Drmies (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Revive me

Persistent little pest aint he. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yep. I forgot what to put in as a reason when I ran CU, since there's so many of these jackasses and they're all the same. I had totally forgotten this one's name. And there's this other child who leaves stupid messages for me all over all the other wikis. I don't even look at them anymore--they get blocked and reverted anyway. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • On that subject, I have received two alerts on this subject header text on the fact that I was mentioned in some reviewing block template with the reason they claim isn't the sock of the LTA, in what is probably the same user as Ad Orientem is saying here. Conversely, see this when they say it has been used by this LTA. (Yawn!) Iggy (Swan) 08:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Doc

Long time no speak. Hope all safe and sound with you and the fam with the weather and all.

I have been gone for a while, but dipped my toenail back in recently and came across the issue noted here, but Mr B seems to be off WP for the moment. Any other CUs you know and love you could recommend I ping on this? Don't want to make a federal case of it on some notice board, just wanted to get someone to opine and action, if appropriate.

Stay safe ^Bongo_matic 18:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Bongo, I am so happy to see you again. Just a few days ago I was going through some old DYKs--you are one of the ones who really got me going here. MBisanz is on vacation? I'll have a look. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The mother of all DYKs. ^Bongo_matic 04:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oh--I know that ArbCom hands out permits, but that's about as much as I know. KrakatoaKatie is pretty adept at technical stuff: Katie, would you mind looking into this? Thanks Bongo, and you take care too. Please drop me a line if you run into exciting things. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

IPBE is granted for extraordinary need. I don’t mean to be flippant, but ‘I like to use a VPN’ isn’t a compelling need, so I’d need more information before I’d grant an exemption. Katie^talk 00:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: After this RfC the "exceptional need" requirement was softened to put more emphasis on the "trusted user" aspect of granting IPBE for VPN use and the policy was updated accordingly. The question here would be a judgment call as to whether having to disconnect from their secure VPN each time Bongo wants to edit Wikipedia constitutes a "need". --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not up to speed with the need to block anonymous proxy access for confirmed users in good standing in the first place, so certainly can't make an informed argument. But 'I like to use a VPN' is the same statement as 'I like to use baseline recommended Internet security', so I'm surprised that a) this doesn't come up a lot; and that b) the functionaries haven't spent time thinking about how to accommodate good security practices for editors. ^Bongo_matic 02:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Update. Don't know precisely what happened or how, but it appears that I can edit while connected through NordVPN now. Don't know if their IPs have been unblocked or what else might have happened.

I don't mean to be a wet blanket, but NordVPN has always had some servers set aside for editing WP. They obfuscate some of their IPs specifically to avoid sites that block proxies. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking all those socks

Just wanted to say thank you for always being so quick to block (and mop up after) the socks that keep popping up over and over again. I greatly appreciate it. Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'm sorry we let this happen. Glad to help; I hope this helps a little bit. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • You've got nothing to be sorry for. Besides, I'm so used to this particular LTA now that their ridiculously comments and laughable empty threats don't bother me one bit. I'm just sorry that this guy leaves a mess of stupid edit summaries and comments that sypsops need to clean up after. Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
    • OK, so this is the STOP CHANGING!!!!!!MY EDITS COCKSUCKER!!!!! person? I think I asked you (or someone else) this before--but there's an SPI, is there not? I remember, but only vaguely--and it might not help much anyway. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

New section

;) John from Idegon (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

How's the pay? I already got hussled today to stand for Faculty Senate. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Bout what you'd expect. We'll start you at 50% of what I'm getting, with a 2.76189% increase (based on performance of course) quarterly for the first five years, at which time you'll receive a 150% increase, two weeks paid vacation, sick leave and a pension. Of course you'll be summarily terminated one week later for no reason at all. John from Idegon (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

No good deed goes unpunished. ^Bongo_matic 04:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Rusty?

Hi Doc

Want to check if I need my joints oiled. Views about this??

Thx ^Bongo_matic 14:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah I have a few (and no, I think you're not rusty at all). One of em was actually stated very well by Black Kite in that conversation. The other is OMG just move along, User:Neo-Jay. I suppose Americans are so used of naming suspects and plastering their photos all over the paper that it's hard for them to see that posting a mugshot is actually A Big Thing. BTW did you see what I just removed from that article? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Next you're going to tell me that People Magazine and Us Weekly are not RS for GNG purposes. ^Bongo_matic 00:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• By the way, just got this very nice honor. ^Bongo_matic 10:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Nice but y u hatin' on Eminem? (Not that I care, by the way...) Drmies (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Not at all. Just reverting vandalism. I love Eminem's homage to the Beastie Boys. ^Bongo_matic 01:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Bongomatic, care to explain this? You're in Ohio, coming through the crazy Y-O-Y-O? Drmies (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Legit. ^Bongo_matic 01:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sock

@User:Drmies Hi, I need the advice of an admin, and I have previously found you to be helpful.

At Talk:Coordinated Universal Time an IP user, 92.24.107.165, has been posting trollish remarks (which have now ensnared me twice, I'm ashamed to say). Another editor, User:Jc3s5h hatted one of the resulting threads while I was replying to it, with a summary saying that the user was banned; when I inquired, the explanation was this. I reverted my comment (and the IP's follow-up); IP has restored my comment, and their own comment, and has now started trying to engage me on the same thread concerning other articles I've edited (which I consider stalking). The address is in a range allocated to TalkTalk, and is adjacent to one listed in that Long-term_abuse article as a sock of the subject of that article. The IP itself is not so listed.

92.24.107.165 is clearly disruptive - see the recent history of Talk:Coordinated Universal Time. The account given in the Long-term_abuse article says to me that I'm way out of my depth - Vote_(X) seems to be quite troublesome.

I'm not sure how to proceed. I don't hang around administrative noticeboards, and I've never tried to report an abusive user before. I think this IP should probably just be summarily blocked, the admin discussion having already been completed. Surely this doesn't require opening a new case? MrDemeanour (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've taken the liberty of blocking the sock. All one needs to do is say that name within earshot of most admins, such as the helpful Drmies here. Sometimes WP:AIV can be used, if you mention that name. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much zzuuzz. MrDemeanour, it can be very hard to always deny trolls; I also get dragged in way too easily. Don't feel bad. Do feel free to exercise your editorial judgment: if you think you're dealing with a troll, one who's been blocked before, apply WP:DENY and simply delete the remark... Take care, Drmies (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

50.201.7.46

Remember this? Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive991#2600:1702:3310:6C30::/64 He's back, as 50.201.7.46 (talk · contribs). I have reported to AIV, is there anything else I can or should do? Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Widr-the-ever-vigilant has blocked. Vanamonde (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks--to all. Drmies (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Well done banning Wikipedia saboteurs like Bosco To. I wonder how much effort it take to maintain Wikipedia from so many random sabotage. Nat.Account (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Nat.Account, thank you, but I'm only one of many. There are indeed many, but we need all kinds: we need writers too. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Huey Lewis and the News

I see you currently active, would you please consider acting this request. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 01:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Seriously? What's next, Bryan Adams and Tina Turner? Drmies (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Huh ? - FlightTime (open channel) 01:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

FlightTime if you don't remember the 1980s you're too young for this talk page. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm OK. Blocked the last two. Houston, we have a problem. I see that Ad Orientem dropped some longer blocks--perhaps that's the way to go here, but I'm about to check out due to a. fire with marshmallows and b. halftime is over. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Enjoy :) thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 01:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Played some music while we were outside. "It's Only Love" is still a great song. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

A funny little reference in WP:TTR

Hi Dr hope all's well! Now, I know you've been around a while on here, so maybe you can remember what this referring to. I stuck up a template on my user page saying I don't mind being templated. Reading the essay WP:TTR I noticed a couple of enigmatic references to an 'admin coach.' It must be an old essay. Did there used to be admin training? Sounds like a good idea. Regards Simon Adler (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

AE

Sandstein closed it, which I think is actually a good thing, given that it was turning into a free-for-all. But he also says explicitly that you are free to act on your own. Given a 1-1 admin view, I think you should examine the AE section and decide for yourself. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I was going to ask the same before I saw the above note. Just to be clear, I don't think anyone including myself should be re-arguing the case on Drmies talk page at this point as everyone should have already made their case at AE. I do have one request I would like to make though if you do make a statement either way. In my statement, I linked to a few previous AE cases on GMO aspersions either directly or to one where I had previously mentioned a lot of the main cases we've had so far with degrees from similar to this case to directly calling someone a shill. That's located where I was basically showing how the GMO aspersions principle has been handled at AE, what's considered unacceptable behavior, and where we've sanctioned more or less the same behavior before.

If you decide to impose sanctions or say no sanctions, would you be willing to have a sentence or two in your justification that addresses how it fits with the making associations between editors and companies to cast doubt portion of the GMO aspersions principle and what has generally been considered inappropriate at AE previously? That's not going to affect what you ultimately decide, but it would help give more clarity to the community for this case decision (not necessarily a proclamation for all cases more suitable for WP:ARCA) between those like me who helped write the principle that was intended to get the behavior I presented to stop and those who consider it ok. If something is unclear just let me know. Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Tryptofish, I am way too much of a drive-by admin to act as the 1 over the other 1, that one being Sandstein. Here's the thing I don't like about this: one admin can close. If I don't agree and still act, I am as much a powerplayer as that other admin. I think these AE sanctions/decisions should be collective/collaborative decisions, and the only reason I'm not going back to it is that no other admin saw fit to jump in: that's the part that Sandstein surely got right. Kingofaces, I am sure you want more, and I am sorry I have no more to offer at this time. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)