User talk:Drmies

Public administration

FYI, when you find an article on a academic field as bloated as that one with job titles and trivia about degree information, it is usually the work of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hoaeter. MrOllie (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• For real? I've blocked many of their socks. Thanks--and I appreciate your cleanup. I'm cleaning up a bit more. Drmies (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
  • At some point they branched out into academia. Strange, I know. MrOllie (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
    • I bet you they were an international student. Listen, MrOllie: earlier today, in the same PA article, I ran into this one again, who I blocked a while ago for all that BS on "notable academics", and I see now that the log says they were already a suspected Hoaeter sock. In the SPI I read that Schar School of Policy and Government is a new target of theirs--it's the George Mason connection, since the 129 IP kept pointing at Talk:George_Mason_University#Removal_of_Notable_faculty_and_alumni. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
    • OK I'm sure you knew this all along already; I keep running into your edits. So they were being promotional in the George Mason article (that text on the "notable people" was indeed awful, and the overlinking is a dead giveaway), started this talk page...well whatever it was, and then went on a spree removing such sections from other articles, claiming it was the same thing. I didn't realize that at the time. Drmies (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

      I had missed the George Mason bit. I'm not terribly active in these areas, but I do take a look around when one of the IPs happens to show up on my watchlist. MrOllie (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

50.80.174.67

I am seriously worried about the edits of 50.80.174.67. To me, it seems large scale destruction with as excuse promotion and being unsourced. No response on the talk page. Request for giving sources instead of removal of large chunks of text unsuccessful. This is going out of hand. I can agree with some of it edits, but mentioning the name of a business is not the same as advertising. The Banner talk 09:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Hmm I don't know. I looked at a couple, only a couple, and agreed with them. Of course I looked at Heerhugowaard also (you know, I'm sure, that that's where my father came from), and I actually agree with the IP more than with you on that Yellow Book list of companies... Drmies (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks for catching the paid editing from Dan1992mou, I'm kinda slapping myself for missing that. I did some digging on the PR person's Linkedin page, and they're 100% the same person. Thanks again! Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 18:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Well, Guessitsavis, I saw it because such paid accounts usually make a dozen useless edits and then post their draft. So I go through the edits, and it struck me that I saw the same name once or twice in those linked articles--and then in the draft. Don't blame yourself: you're working with good faith, and there was no reason for you to suspect anything. See also this section, User_talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63#Louisa_Hawkins_Canby, and probably a few other sections on that IP's talk page. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Dpugh500

Hi, I was wondering if something could be done with this user? He's recently removed content with legit sources from these pages[1] & [2]. His reasoning in the edit summaries being "Living people don't have DOB". Which makes absolutely no sense. I have since then reverted them. And he's been warned several times about adding and changing content without valid reasons[3].

I'd also like to mention that this very likely another account of this one[4]. Which has been blocked in 2022 for the same reasons. Kcj5062 (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• No problem--thanks. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you. One thing I forgot to mention is that I've come across this editor on several fandom wikis and he does the same stuff there. For some reason he wants actors(particularly voice actors) to be younger. At one point he was globally blocked. So he probably ended up irritating many admins. Kcj5062 (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
    • Some people really need to find another hobby, don't they. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

My problem

Drmies, my problem is that if I stop reverting and report, as I have done many times, then his version stays while I collect the evidence and the investigation is going on. Luckily I have found admins who now know him and are fast at investigating, but still it takes some time. And, once his sock is blocked, I can revert him... but then, in a second, his version will be back 'cause another sock of his will immediately appear. And if i do it all over, stop reverting and instead report, again his version stays while the process is ongoing. Effectively, many of his edits and versions stay, while my correction gets immediately reverted. For example...after some of the latest socks were blocked, I or other users corrected the Spain article, the genetic history of Italy article, the genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula article, the Romance languages article, the Battle of Lepanto article. But he just reverted with the new socks I mentioned at Talk:Trajan. And he will do it again when blocked. And so the current verion of these articles is his. I waste much more time than him at collecting evidence and reporting, while at the end of the day he acts not constrained by rules and is able to make much more edits than me with the many socks he creates. And (the irony!) I am the one who tries to be a good-faith user, while he is the permanently blocked one. But effectively he is the one not costrained. In this sense, sad for me to say it but it is the truh, he has been right to call me a fool who cannot stop him. Also, he checks every edit I do (so let me say "Hi" to Venezia/James who is reading this too) and often intervenes to change them later on. This is how I discovered some of his socks in previous years because I was like damn, so many of my edits are destroyed for no reason after a few hours or days. Then I discovered it was always him, chasing me. I let Venezia Friulano work for a lot of time on wikipedia eve I though i knew it was James Oredan. I was wrong because he did a lot of damage. Then he even said I WAS THE ONE chasing him (accusation in a mirror is his forte). So now I am basically on this anti-vandal crusade and now the most I do on wikipedia is to control this blocked user and I cannot do anything else. I do certain edits without logging in because I want to avoid edit wars by not revealing my identity, or I had to come at certain discussions and say "hey this is Barjimoa, but I forgot to log in". Not to to sound miserable, but to an extend I kinda am. The only consolatoon is that James/Venezia is also wasting his days, months and years like this, so we are both miserable. I don't know if there are some solutions for this? Barjimoa (talk)

• Well the question with each individual sock is, do you want to fill up the article history with reverts and reverts, or can it just sit for a day or two until the sock is blocked? What gives the sock greater pleasure? The reverts, no doubt. In general there's just very little we can do, though the article is now protected for a while. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• I found a few more. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC
  • Drmies, also the following: Tyrefr, Flutoumb, Auxeron, FriedrichC82, Fleanot, Lucenselugo, and Unidosporasensio. I have also informed the admin Daniel Case who has lately blocked lots of these socks, so that you can work in two and it's less heavy.Barjimoa (talk) 07:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
    • I'm on it but please link the user/talk pages next time. Two of the names must have a typo, and the last one, I need to see a bit more evidence. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
      • The last one was created to edit a number of pages (War of Jenkin's Ear, War of the Quadruple Alliance, Anglo-Spanish War, colonial empire) in which a number of IPs and blocked socks of James/Venezia were also active (such as User:Alburobizet) and pushed there some of his historic anti-English agenda that have been relentlessy dealt with and reverted by many other good-faith users. I have have dealt occasionally with this type of anti-English socks of James. Broadly speaking, what they typically do incude: inventing out of nowhere (or overstressing) Spanish victories against England; removing with little explanation (or downplaying) English victories against Spain; claiming the British empire was colonial/bad and smaller while the Spanish empire was non-colonial/good and bigger; changing figures accordingly (casualties or size of empire); personally attacking British users (in various ways: usually implying they are biased and racists; his typical accusation in a mirror etc etc); this is not the case but often times they have a British name and pretend to be British (already blocked: JamesOredan, SmithGraves), just like some of his anti-portuguese socks pretend to be Portuguese and some of his anti-Italian socks pretend to be Italian. And sorry you are right, it's User:Tyrefr and User:Floutomb.Barjimoa (talk) 04:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
      • Also, can you protect the Battle of Lepanto page given that he has been blocked and reverted but continues with other socks?Barjimoa (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

We've got another...

User:Chilmihusada is a sock of several long-banned accounts, including Husada28, I suspect. Anwegmann (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• Anwegmann, you're good at this. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  I do my best! Thanks for the help! Anwegmann (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate you stepping in re: Jack. He has also undone a good faith redirect twice. I am not going to restore it, as I am simply not here to fight him and will just let it go to avoid any drama. However, FYI anyway. Thank you very much, MC — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• Well he claims he's not edit warring. I'm not going to revert that either; I believe the community can take care of that. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Another possible sock...

I have a suspicion that User:Cavide96 is a sock of User:Naxsy and User:Andriyrussu. They have very similar editing habits, at times making identical edits that were previously reverted. Anwegmann (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• Wizardman, is it time to rethink the whole Wikipedia:ANI 2.0 thing? ;) Drmies (talk) 03:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

There's a possibility that User talk:BunicaValea is also sock of all of the above. I don't know how I'm constantly stumbling on these, but they all edit in the exact same way. Anwegmann (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

103.25.249.243

103.25.249.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
May be a sockpuppet of 103.25.249.227, an IP that you blocked. First 3 numbers are the same and they edit the same pages in the same manner. //●→█2003 LN6█→●// 19:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks. Not a sock or a meat--it's the same person. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

More involving Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Otuọcha

Morning. The IPs have been busy adding more suspected socks above. I already closed the first naming DanaMichal for insufficient evidence. Undaunted, they've now added Pfomma. In reviewing the first article they listed, Auddy Kelly, I thought that Otuọcha's edits ran contrary to Pfomma's, e.g., adding a notability tag to an article that Pfomma created, but then I got stuck on Pfomma's and another user's behavior, Jparrd, suspicious that those two are socks of each other. First, take a look at their userpages: besides comparing the similarities between the two current versions, also compare the current version of Pfomma's userpage with a previous version of Jparrd's. It's possible that Jparrd copied Pfomma's, but it is obviously the same as Pfomma's. Also, the article intersection is substantial. However, they appear to edit using different platforms and some of Jparrd's edits, I believe (I looked at them a while ago and forgot to keep the window up), are vandalism of Pfomma's creation. Before I take action at the SPI, though, I'd like to know if Jppard is a sock of Pfomma, assuming you're willing to run a check. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Drmies, it's fine if you're not willing to run a check...I'd just like to know one way or the other. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Shoot Bbb, did I miss a message? Sorry, I've been out of town. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Well that evidence was pretty overwhelming, esp. the user page and overlap, and I ran the check: confirmed and now blocked. Thanks Bbb, sorry for the delay. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I figured you might be away because you weren't here 24x7 as usual and that when you got back, you might have missed this one. I'm not used to your being away. Hope your trip was pleasure-related. I've taken the liberty of tagging the two accounts as confirmed. Thanks for your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Pleasure? I forgot about that. This was a college visit with my oldest daughter. I feel like my life is falling apart and it's too late to repair. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

You mean because your daughter is growing up and possibly leaving the nest...or something else? I worry about you sometimes.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Oakwood Cemetery (Montgomery, Alabama)

On 24 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Oakwood Cemetery (Montgomery, Alabama), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Oakwood Cemetery contains the graves of Confederate soldiers and officers, English, Canadian, and French World War II pilots, and Hank Williams? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Oakwood Cemetery (Montgomery, Alabama). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Oakwood Cemetery (Montgomery, Alabama)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Just fyi

Just so you're aware of what's going on see here. Moxy🍁 00:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Does it ever stop? Drmies (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
  • I personally follow three shock puppets for years.... have not reported them because they've seem to have learned their lesson...as in they make positive contributions now. Sometimes it's better to just watch over them than it is to figure out who they are every new account. That said in this case and in other cases that I report it's usually because of behavioral or copyright issues. Moxy🍁 01:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    • There's another one, reported earlier on this page, who just can't stop. Worse, there's a racist who pops up on a daily basis. The internet has been a great asset for racists and sexist. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
      • Anonymity behind a PC has been great for voicing all points of view... be they logical or not. Freedom of speech is a great thing....but not so great for Wikipedia. Moxy🍁 01:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit summaries?

Sorry, but what do you mean by be more explicit in edit summaries? Where did I go wrong. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 15:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• You reverted a bunch of their edits without explaining why. After checking, I can see why (unjustified warnings on IP talk pages), but we should still explain what we're doing. Thanks. BTW I indef-blocked the editor. If they come back in another guise, please let me know. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Need a friendly rollbacker

Hi, an editor Villkomoses has been converting fiction narratives from present to past tense.[5] They're probably new, they've done a lot of articles over the last few days, and are charging ahead quite fast. I'm not too fussed about this sort of thing, but noticed because they're introducing other grammatical errors and often leaving loads of present tense verbs in place, so the whole thing is a bit of a mess. I initially sent them a long message via talk-page asking them to be more careful, but I realise that the whole enterprise is fundamentally against MOS:PLOT. I've asked them to stop, but I think given the error-prone editing that it would probably be best to undo the whole lot. I'm asking you as a recently-active admin as I didn't want to humiliate a good-faith new editor with an ANI request. If there's somewhere more appropriate, please do let me know. Thanks! Elemimele (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Reversions

Hello. Why are you deleting Presidential results for the cities of Boston and Somerville? The results shown are for the cities in said Presidential elections, they do not show the results for the state of Massachusetts. There is nothing wrong with showing the Presidential results for these cities. If there would be, we might as well delete the election results on every single US county page. ZackCarns (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• Interesting that you post here, without simply pinging me from your talk page, where I already explained this. First, oh? Is that so? Because the link you gave isn't to anything specific--am I supposed to start searching in an archived portal? And search for what? Note also that the title in your citation template was "Massachusetts Election Statistics". Second, why should we include that data? Is there agreement on that in the Cities Wikiproject? Third, this is an FA. It wasn't in the last FA version, and I don't agree with its inclusion. If you want it in, you'll have to do a better job referencing it, and you'll have to find some consensus for it. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
  • That source was already in there. Someone else referenced it, not myself. I can add the references if you want me to. Also, why not include the data? If we have a section about the politics of the city, we might as well include statistics from said city. ZackCarns (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
    • You used it, so the Pottery Barn Rule applies, I reckon. We can include all the statistics in the world from that city, but I see no reason why. Really, though, you should discuss this on the article talk page or on the Wikiproject page. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
      • This seems to be a growing problem I wonder if we should have another talk like this one>>>>>Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Archive 14#Federal election charts in State articles Moxy🍁 15:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
        • Thank you for that link and the comment, Moxy. It seems to be part of the continuous movement of making any article all-inclusive. ZackCarns, I hope you saw this comment and the discussion it linked to. For the record, I did not know about this, but it seemed reasonable to me that reasonable editors would have agreed already to keep that kind of material out. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

          Alright. Understood. Truth be told, I've lost interest in the information anyway, as I've moved on to other Massachusetts-related elections stuff. ZackCarns (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Time to stop staring at socks, Doktoro!

• Berlagebrug (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Not Just Bikes. Amsterdam Closed This Bridge to Cars (but not bikes ofc). Event occurs at 2:52.
• Kruizinga, J. H. (1973). Amsterdam, stad der duizend bruggen (in Dutch). Strengholt. ISBN 9789060102855.

Your services have been called for. We need someone who can read Gallifreyan to get at the good sources. Do you know anyone? Uncle G (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)