User talk:Drmies/Archive 132

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Drmies. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 125

←

Archive 130

Archive 131

Archive 132

Archive 133

Archive 134

Archive 135

Regarding your partial close at WP:AN#KB requesting a partial close? where you wrote: " I do not see a clear agreement that a 2-way iBan should be instated though it is certainly leaning that way." In the discussion in that thread there are 9 editors who explicitly spoke on favor of a 2-way iBan: Levivich, Mr Ernie, valereee, DGG, Ivanvector, myself (Nsk92), SarahSV, MONGO, AlmostFrancis. Only one editor has spoken against extending the 1-way iBan to a 2-way iBan, namyly SPECIFICO. With respect, how much more consensus on the 2-way iBan issue do you require? Could you please take another look at the discussion there? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

If you are right it should be easy to get agreement on it. The point was not for me to find editors who spoke out against it--a partial close was requested to solve at least one problem, and that is what I did. It is worth noting that there were editors who wanted the block lifted but did not express a desire for a two-way ban. Also, getting kind of tired of the "with respect", which is usually just a prelude to a complaint. Please run for admin and make these decisions yourself: believe me, no one enjoys settling some of these longstanding disputes. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Nsk92, Valereee started the process. Sorry, but this is important enough to get it right. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not about to repeat my mistake of making any sort of revert to KB's edits, and was even considering undoing my edits on that draft, except that it might be considered inflammatory. I thought that @Seraphimblade: was patient and thougthful in handling his interactions with KB, and he was only one among roughly half a dozen editors who cautioned KB about violations or near-violations of the IBAN. I did not request that IBAN and would be just as happy if it were vacated. But that thread didn't get close to the bottom of things, and I urge Nsk92 to consider just keeping an eye on things -- I don't expect there to be any further incident or complaint in this matter. Neither KB nor I complained about any other incident during 2 months of us working on some of the same pages after the IBAN. SPECIFICO talk 00:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Specifico, I really have no opinion on the actual block, besides the obvious "it wasn't a crazy block". I know Seraphimblade as a thoughtful administrator whose judgment I never saw reason to question, but here the consensus was just really clear. I vaguely remember having had a run-in with KB or, more likely, remember reading about some of their edits or editing behavior, but just not clearly enough to actually have an opinion. Look, if someone like DGG suggests a two-way ban, that should be taken seriously, and maybe that's where this will go. If there's many of those opinions floating around, that also suggests that it is wise of you to stay out of the fray. Take care, Drmies (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Just FYI, this got created again here. Not sure if the notability issue has been addressed. Spiderone 17:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks--I appreciate the note. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) The character Natasha Fatale is notable by Wikipedia standards. I'm still looking for unquestionably independent, significant coverage from reliable sources that isn't just a small part of coverage of the TV show or franchise. When I find something that's more than a paragraph or two, preferably several such "medium-sized" bits of coverage or at least one "large" bit of coverage, I'll either add it to the existing article if there is one at the time, or revert the best redirect I can find and add to it. My "claim" that there is almost certainly going to be significant coverage from reliable, independent sources comes from memories of some radio interviews with the voice actor that focused on that character (granted, NOT independent, but it was National Public Radio), numerous anecdotes that strongly indicate that the character is "well known in popular culture" including in this book by David G. Epstein. I may need to do a print-magazine search through my local library to find the "significant coverage" but I would be very surprised if it isn't there.

    In the meantime, I would ask you to consider undoing this edit and slapping cleanup templates on it. I know I could do this myself, but you've been around long enough for me to put the "D" in front of "R" in "BRD." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 20:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

    • davidwr, don't worry about any letters. When you find the sources and rewrite the article, just do it: a revert with significant additions of sources is not a revert but an improvement, certainly in this case. Take care, Drmies (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Drmies. I hope you're enjoying the holiday season. In the past you and I both have had to deal with Jienum regarding edits related to OJ Simpson. I would appreciate your opinion about this edit, which more than doubles the size of an otherwise very short article with edits about Simpson. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• OMG I think I remember what you are talking about. I'll have a look, though it is likely going to be something that doesn't make me more cheerful. Thanks, and take care, Drmies (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the AfD. I had heavily considered it but did not want to come across as biting a legitimate help request at the noticeboard.[1] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• Sure thing. Yes, I saw that and didn't quite know what the question was or what the answer should be, but when I saw the article I knew that AfD was the way to go. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking at Old revision of User_talk:Loves_Woolf1882 and Talk:Mai Kadra massacre, I get the feeling that I'm repeating what you and Doug Weller tried to explain almost two years ago. I think the state of Mai Kadra massacre is probably reasonable right now, except for the ridiculous POV tag, which seems to mean that the article is POV because it is not presented as "Abiy Ahmed carried out a genocide against Tigrayans". Feel free to edit the article or talk page if you still have the energy. Trying to clean up Abiy Ahmed or Tigray conflict would risk being, to quote Doug, a timesink. Boud (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• I'm wondering if maybe you should ask for a topic ban, given the lengthy comments on the talk page, the blatantly partisan comment here, and the railroading of that last discussion. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• As I'm a directly involved editor, I tend to feel that someone uninvolved (or not recently involved, like you), could better do that. (1) An NPOV argument against a topic ban would be that the user does provide some points of view, with some sources that are valid (and many that are invalid), that help NPOV the pages. Community sustainability arguments could go both ways: (2) this user is quite likely discouraging others (including those who agree with him/her) from editing or discussing edits; but (3) topic-banning this user would prevent him/her from contributing to a subject on which s/he does provide some useful content. A counterargument to (3) would be (4): if s/he is really motivated to contribute to the encyclopedia as a whole, then learning to edit on topics where s/he does not feel so strongly involved could help for post-topic-ban editing the Ethiopian/Tigrayan pages (if the ban is for a defined period, e.g. 1 month or 6 months). Boud (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• You know the subject matter and the present concerns much better than I do. And it will take me forever to go through the sources that are presented, separating out the wheat from the chaff: if it is your judgment that they use unreliable/unacceptable sources, both in article content and to support arguments on talk pages, and if that is correct, that is a most serious impediment to article progress, and it poses an enormous workload on other editors just to read and assess those sources. You don't need to be uninvolved to open an ANI thread; it will be closed by an uninvolved administrator. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

•  Done Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Loves Woolf1882: I did my best to describe everything fairly. Boud (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Just to comment on this brief point, "unreliable/unacceptable sources" - it's rather using sources for content that they do not provide (WP:OR). Anyway, this is not the place to discuss further. Boud (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah, that falls under the broad umbrella of "unacceptable"--unacceptable for the content. Anyway, I saw the thread and commented, and I think you for starting it. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Most unsettling has been the quantity of false accusations with administrators echoing them without verification...It's not encouraging when administrators repeatedly assume bad faith Your name isn't mentioned but your diffs are included, so ... Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Fringe_theories_and_advocacy Otherwise, happy New Year. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oh isn't that special. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• "...a rare talent for tirritating" - oh yes, I hate that! Happy New Year! Johnbod (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Johnbod, some people are really good at that. There's a couple more--in Dutch we say they draw the blood from under your nails. Middayexpress was one that comes to mind. Take care--all the best to you and yours. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• And you & yours too. Btw, I've been spending the post-Xmas period working up the Master of Delft, whose paintings look like the customers of a rough Dutch pub have all been given fancy dress. I've long been a fan of his London triptych & will do that next I think. Johnbod (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Wow, I learned something--never heard of him. The Twente picture is quite amazing. You have done a wonderful job with that article, as usual. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• I guess it isn't, HouseOfChange--it's par for the course. You know, I spent quite a bit of time on that book and its reviews before I said anything about it on the talk page. To see someone shit on that in that way, that's more than a bit hurtful. I hope someone is just going to cut this short and block then indefinitely. Happy new year! Drmies (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, cheer up, I still like you, even if you do keep calling me wordy (which alas is true.) HouseOfChange (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Haha, not as wordy as the other guy. Hey, don't be afraid of that arbitration case. There is no merit to it. I know it may seem like a huge deal, and a vote of non-confidence, but I think in this case you really don't have to worry about a thing. Take care, Drmies (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hello. Recently you banned Arsenekoumyk. However, considering that he's the only one who contributes in Kumyk sections here and he immediately made his status retired, I must ask a few questions.

• Have you seen that he's not the one who provoked an Edit Warring? The one who did was user Adigabrek, who made reversions of reversions?
• Have you seen the talk page and how Adigabrek was provoking indefinite unargumented conversation? Have you seen that he used terms such as "you shout, Kumyk ultranationalists" and not once responded with an argument about sources. See talk page.
• In the block log there's another account which you called Arsenekoumyk's socket? Has he done any edit warring from that account? Has he ever used that account to abuse?
• Was it considered that edits under IP might not be Arsenekoumyk's? If it was checked, was it considered that the opponent started an edit war and provoked Arsenekoumyk, when Arsenekoumyk objected everything in a most argumented way on talk page?
• Were there any open request to check the situation? Or is Adigabrek your "friend" or "acquaintance" which commanded you to impose an indefinite block with no requests somewhere off Wikipedia?

All in all, I think Wikipedia's section on Kumyks which Arsenekoumyk worked on will lose a lot due to your quite blind reaction. His edits are very neat in terms of "wikipedity". If you look at the page of the edit war provoker himself, even there the flag he uses was created by Arsenekoumyk. Доктор Уотсон (talk) 11:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Доктор

@Доктор Уотсон: I did not want ban anyone. I do not even have permission to do so, and why would I want him banned? It was not an edit war, we had a minor dispute (such things are very common between Caucasians...) and we properly sorted it out in the talk section and only after mutual agreement, I edited the page. The issue was settled, I just learned from you that he was banned. Some IP adresses vandalised the page, and they were banned, I do not know why Koumyk was banned also. It'd be a loss for the Kumyk sections so it'd be good to see him unbanned. Also, for the record, I do not know this person like you implied I might. Peace. Signed, ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 16:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Доктор Уотсон: It doesn't matter how good somebody's edits are. Abuse of the system, by editing with sockpuppet accounts or while logged out, is unacceptable. I don't have access to the technical logs, so I can't verify the situation myself. However, based on my experience with Drmies, this admin is confident that if she blocked Arsenekoumyk, she did it based on solid evidence that there were abusive edits made from the other account(s) or IP(s) and not just at the request of another editor. —C.Fred (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you C.Fred (and happy new year! thank you for all the work you've done here over the years). Доктор Уотсон, I don't know who you are, and I don't know who Adigabrek is, and the suggestion that I did something on someone's request is ridiculous and insulting. It also suggests that you don't really know how this works: first of all that user isn't banned but blocked, and secondly they are blocked because they used multiple accounts against policy. The evidence for that is provided by a tool whose use is strictly regulated by the Arbitration Committee and by the Wikimedia Foundation itself, and if I were to abuse it I'd lose it immediately. Let me make this clear: socking is a serious matter. Finally, your comments about Adigabrek aren't really relevant to me; if they are disruptive, you can report that to ANI and ask other admins and editors to judge their behavior. Happy new year, Drmies (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year 2021 I hope your New Year holiday is enjoyable and the coming year is much better than the one we are leaving behind. Best wishes from Los Angeles.   // Timothy :: talk

• Yep, and best wishes to you, from Alabama. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year! If you have the time, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Crovata. Can this be processed as a CU?--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks! Eh, yes, but I think you know that CU can't do anything there, since there is no data available on a master that was blocked three years ago. Any decision must be made on the basis of behavior. RoySmith, do you have an opinion? Drmies (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I was looking at that earlier today, and didn't come to any conclusion. I'll take another look. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks --the end-- . Drmies (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Why are you deleting information on the OSM Foundation that is relevant to general knowledge? Amustard (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Because it's unverified and unencyclopedic information. Surely that club has a website where all that directory information can be found. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Guideline and policy news

• Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.

Technical news

• You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.

Arbitration

• By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
• Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.

---

Hi Drmies bro (or sir), I hope it is not wrong to write you, but I mean positively by it. I just wanted to say, please let me know directly if/when I do something wrong. That would be the fastest and most efficient way to correct me. I believe you encouraged User:Boud to report me instead of you giving me a single point of correction or warning directly. As you probably know, now I'm banned though I did nothing new worthy of a topic ban, but mainly for my mistakes from two years ago. Anyhow, please consider approaching someone directly if/when you think they are doing something wrong is all I'm saying. We are all human! Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Hmm I disagree: you got topic-banned for your recent behavior. Thank you, and good luck, Drmies (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I’m curious about the Miki Filigranski case I was following. Crovata has been inactive. Miki uses one account and made large positive contributions to Wikipedia. Why are they considered sockpuppeting with just one account. They have shown to be productive. Seems unfare. What are your thoughts? Can one be banned for life from Wikipedia? Miki seems banned now.... Thanks. OyMosby (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey, OyMosby. The initial report is unconvincing but @RoySmith: has done a better comparison of the two accounts. Right now it looks 60%-40% in favor of the two accounts being the same person. If they are the same person, MF has matured a lot from their days as Crovata. If they're not the same person, the community has lost without reason a very good editor who brought a refreshing non-ethnicized narrative in the Balkan topic area. MF made many good changes and dispelled all kinds of nationalist myths from all sides, but sockpuppetry shouldn't be rewarded. Now, maybe these two narratives could be bridged if MF is allowed to edit under permanent 1RR/month sanctions if they come clean and admit that they are indeed Corvata. But if they're not Corvata, they shouldn't be forced to admit that in order to be able to edit. Are they allowed to edit their talkpage? I'd want to know their opinion on the matter.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

MF has matured a lot from their days as Crovata... My sides! Please stop, you're killing me. I can't remember the last time I've enjoyed such a hearty laugh. Miki was one of the rudest, most aggressive and foul-mouthed users I've ever had the misfortune to come across on this site. And that's saying something. All ad hominem and no substance. "Lies" this, "bullshit" that. [2] [3] Here is the "matured" Miki going from section to section on a talk page and entering only the word "bullshit" as their only response multiple times. [4] Real mature. To call this behaviour unhinged would be the understatement of the century.

...the community has lost without reason a very good editor who brought a refreshing non-ethnicized narrative in the Balkan topic area. I...I can't... This person was using sock accounts as Crovata, got indefinitely blocked, started socking again within weeks of that block, and engaged in nothing but flamewars and insult trading for over 3 years until their latest sock was uncovered. Maleschreiber, gaslighting and filibustering across multiple SPIs, and in this case trying to get a prolific sockmaster and harasser unblocked, isn't doing any favours to your credibility. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I've seen an editor who has improved many articles (the latest example) and I've also disagreed with them in several topics. I don't endorse responding to anyone with "lies" and other phrases and I've explained to another report to MF that they should calm down, but I can understand where their reaction is coming from in some cases. If they have to debate with WP:FRINGE theories, there's a limit to what many editors who might actually be engaged in academia will withstand when confronted with theories that don't belong to any institutional environment. Exploring all options which might be open if certain conditions are met is not the same as trying to get anyone unblocked. Now, did MF improve wikipedia with their writing? For the most part yes - but sockpuppetry shouldn't be rewarded. That is my starting point and I wanted to explore a possible permanent sanction as part of a WP:STANDARDOFFER.--Maleschreiber (talk) 05:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:STANDARDOFFER is moot after one has been abusing the system for the better part of a decade, as Crovata/Miki has. How many obvious sockmasters does one have to vigorously defend before it becomes crystal clear to everyone that you clearly aren't here to build an encyclopedia, Maleschreiber? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't have to defend someone in order to explore all possible options in a case. Sockpuppetry is not acceptable and some things might be worth discussing if certain conditions are met. I'm not suggesting what should be done, I'm merely discussing an issue on a talkpage while fully recognizing problems like behaviour towards other editors. I don't know how that is related to my ability to build an encyclopedia, but in the time I've been around I'm proud of the fact that I've improved articles which I could improve based on the knowledge my field of studies provides and that I've written almost from scratch a good article (Cem (river)) and a few new articles that appeared on the frontpage. --Maleschreiber (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

AB, I agree with you about the foul mouthed nature of her comments and aggressive insults to put it mildly. That is unacceptable. And doesn’t help other parties come to a consensus. It’s unfortunate as they have also made many great improvements to articles in the process. Fixing old articles in shambles and so on. Maybe they will change, I don’t know. But if this is Crovata and Crovata acted like this. It doesn’t bode well. Maleshriber, she isn’t exactly guilt free here so I think it would be good I agree to wait and see what Miki says if she can with their talk page and explain herself. You guys have been on here longer than I so y’all know more about how thee things goOyMosby (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

"Her". Crovata/Miki has been exceedingly dishonest the entire time they've been editing. Case in point -- claiming to be an Italian woman. Without disclosing too much, looking at this sockmaster's accidental logged/unlogged edits, Crovata/Miki's edits clearly aren't coming from Italy. Judging by Miki's comments on hr.wiki, Crovata/Miki is clearly a male (uses male forms, etc.) But that's neither here nor there. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Huh... they kept getting mad being referred to as a man and went on about “toxic masculinity” so thought it was a woman. OyMosby (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

If you look at Miki's global contributions, and look at Miki's contributions on hr.wiki and sr.wiki, Miki clearly refers to himself using masculine forms (not sure if you know any Serbo-Croatian). Why would an Italian woman do such a thing? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

OyMosby, I think RoySmith did a great job on that SPI, and I am very grateful to him. Yes, if Miki F ever wants to get back, they'll have to come clean. I actually didn't look very much into all the edits; I cannot comment on the supposed rudeness, on whether they're edits very neutral or not, I just can't. I'm also not very knowledgeable on Italian women, I'm afraid. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you. I never doubted RoySmith’s capabilities. Just asking about if a user only uses one account during a given time. But as Roy explained, due to Crovata being blocked, this is block evasion and unacceptable I agree. “ I'm also not very knowledgeable on Italian women, I'm afraid” Haha ;) OyMosby (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

You were about three minutes ahead of me on that Optus rangeblock. Acroterion (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• I was bored. I finished an article and am watching my boy get killed again and again on some first-persoon shooter game. I don't think I want him to play that game anymore. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, your reaction time is better. I prepared by finishing up some meeting minutes I'd put off doing. Acroterion (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Where do they all come from? Wonder if I can prophylactically ban at UTRS. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oh, all of them were blocked already, I think; I just confirmed and tagged them, and blocked the range--something Berean Hunter did a while ago also. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--

• I see. Thanks. Don't fall for the lengthy back and forths: the longer the thread, the less likely people are to join. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I will try to not-fall. By the way, about Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks--so glad I just learned that. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Sure thing. Rexx is serious about it, and if Rexx is serious about something, we should be too. Good luck..! Drmies (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Drmies, I saw that you recently contacted me, saying you took down my edit to the Baked Alaska Wikipedia Page, me having added domestic terrorist as one of Baked Alaska's descriptors. I am not sure if you are aware of the recent events in Washington DC, but Baked Alaska recently stormed the United States Capitol, with thousands of other rioters. In this storm, armed rioters, including Baked Alaska, intruded on Capitol grounds, broke down the door of the Capitol while Senate was in session, and intruded into the congressional chambers, forcing many lawmakers to flee, and some to hide. They proceeded to loot and destruct parts of the capitol. Several were injured during this storm, and there was one death. Baked Alaska was one of these rioters, he also livestreamed part of the storm of the Capitol while he was inside of the Capitol, proving he was there. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines domestic terrorism as, "Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature." The storming of the capital, which Baked Alaska has been proven to have been affiliated with, is most certainly, without a doubt, an act of domestic terrorism by the FBI's definition. Meaning anyone participating in this act of domestic terrorism is a domestic terrorist. The evidence is out here, clear as day, on the table. Baked Alaksa stormed the United States Capital, looting, destroying, and vandalizing it, his actions are defined by the FBI as domestic terrorism, therefore, he is a domestic terrorist. With all due respect, sir, these are hard cold facts, not a viewpoint, not a way of looking at it, and most certainly not an opinion. Saying otherwise would be obstructing information from the public. Wikipedia is a place of facts, and we should strive to be non-bias, an refusing to update Baked Alaska's description as a domestic terrorist is hiding the facts, and promoting a right wing bias. Thank you very much for your time, have an excellent rest of your evening/morning/afternoon. RauruOfLight (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the explanation, but it’s your own commentary and conclusion. Content must be properly verified by secondary sources, especially if it involves living people. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Drmies (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Wait. I missed that you suggested a right-wing bias existed, right there in that sentence where you were mansplaining Wikipedia to me. That’s foolish. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Drmies (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• I understand the need for sources, and I got your message on my talk page, which is why I have included a source for the definition of domestic terrorist, and one for the additional edit I made, saying that Goinet livestreamed the storm. And as far as the right wing bias, I am sorry I apparently didn't make this clear, that is my fault, but I was not accusing Wikipedia of a right wing bias, nor was I accusing you or the Baked Alaska Wikipedia article of a right wing bias. I said that by refusing to acknowledge the fact that Baked Alaska is now a domestic terrorist is promoting a right wing bias. Promoting a right wing bias is not showing a right wing bias, the difference is showing a right wing bias is displaying news in a way that favors the right side of the political spectrum, this wold be if you edited Baked Alaska to say he participated in the protest to prevent lawmakers from confirming an election that may have been interfered with. THAT wold be a right wing bias, as it directly delivers news in wording that favors the right side. What you did, intentional or not, promoted a right wing bias, since you simply refused to display facts that would hurt the right side. Again, you refused to display facts that would hurt the right side of the political spectrum. I am sorry I came off as talking down to you about Wikipedia's biases, that was not my intention, and I hope I have clarified the true meaning behind my words. And secondly, this is NOT my own commentary and conclusion, it is a FACT that Baked Alaska participated in domestic terrorism. Yes, I came to the conclusion of this fact using evidence of Baked Alaska's presence, and the FBI's definition of domestic terrorism, but so did many others, including republicans like GOP Spokesperson Michael Ahrens. Not only does this fit the FBI's definition, but every other I could find. Not only does this fit all those definition, but also common sense. Thousands of armed rioters busted down the door of the United States Capitol while senate was in session, fired guns, sent multiple people to the hospital, killed someone, destroyed the chambers, and planted a bomb in the capitol. Planting a bomb in the US Capitol is not terrorism? So I ask you this question, I want a direct answer from you, why is it not a fact that the storming of the capitol was not terrorism? Why is this not a fact? Please answer, this is not rhetorical. Also, I saw you said I could restore my edits if I stood by them, so I did, adding a source for my new edit, I started writing this message, realized I didn't include citation for the FBI's definition of Domestic Terrorism, so I went back, changed that, published it, and saw that you once again took down my Baked Alaska edits, despite saying I could restore them if I stood by them. What's the deal with this? Also, here's the link to the FBI document I cited https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/fbi-dhs-domestic-terrorism-definitions-terminology-methodology.pdf/view — Preceding unsigned comment added by RauruOfLight (talk • contribs) 15:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think you understand the need for sources: you can cite sources for as many bombs as you like, but until you have a source that says "person X is a domestic terrorist", you can't put that in article space. And even then, most likely, you have to ascribe the label to whoever the source is. All the stuff you say here (in this too-long paragraph) is original research. You said "I came to the conclusion..."--that is the very hallmark of original research, and you just can't do that. And there's other problems: if there's thousands of these *****s, you can't pin this bomb or that behavior on one person--unless there's a reliable source saying that law enforcement has made that identification, for instance. Please see also WP:PSTS. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Very well. I understand now that I, the editor cannot be the one to make the connection between the FBI's definition, the event in question, and Baked Alaska's participation in the event. Another, reliable source has to make that connection, and claim it. And also to clarify, I could not cite someone calling the storm on the capitol "domestic terrorism" along with another citation prooving Baked Alaska's participation in said storm, and use that to label him a domestic terrorist, correct? I stand by the fact that Baked Alaska is a domestic terrorist for participating in the storming of the capitol, but I acknowledge that Wikipedia requires someone other than the editor to connect the dots and present the evidence of their edit. I also understand that all of the evidence proving my claim is irrelevant if I am the one who gathered the evidence, which is a reasonable rule. Also, sorry I got a little off track in that last message and strayed from my point. Thank you for your time, I understand and accept your point, thank you, good day. (Wow, a debate between two internet people ended with one conceding, that's rare!) RauruOfLight (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Yes, that is sort of what this boils down to. Someone else, some other source (a reliable source that carries weight) has to make that claim. You can make it, and I can make a whole bunch of claims about that person, but you and I mean nothing. The weight is important too: go look at all those articles for the misogynists, white supremacists, neo-Nazis, racists, internet trolls, etc--on EVERY talk page you'll find discussion of when what labels can be applied, and the answer typically is, when reliable sources say so. And there's kind of a tipping point, between "sources a and b call him a Holocaust denier" and "person x is a Holocaust denier". The tipping point is reached when enough sources of enough weight say so--at some point, it's "the sky is blue". Look at the difference between Ron Unz and David Duke, for instance: for the latter, there is no doubt. Does all that make sense? Imagine the legwork that will have to be done before someone could apply "white supremacist" to the President's talk page. Take care, Drmies (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I've blocked the /64 there ... see this userspace essay on the subject]]. Graham87 16:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• I saw that a while ago but haven't taken it to heart yet. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Drmies. This is a courtesy notice about a thread at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Administrative abuse by User:Drmies. Cheers,— Diannaa (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter de Washington as Delete. I just wanted to be sure you were aware that the article creator moved (renamed) the article to William de Washington after the AfD was initiated, such that your deletion of Walter de Washington only removed the redirect they thus created and not the namespace currently occupied by the article. Agricolae (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• ...what the... Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Sicilian monks requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello again Drmies, here's the link for my case: [[5]]

Neckhumbucker (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Drmies, I had prepared a rebutal for the redirect votes on "Articles for deletion/Ozan Boz (2nd nomination)" and I was going to add them to the discussion page today. Only to find out it was closed. I am a little surprised. (I am not a frequent contributor, pls consider me as newcomer) Here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating:_checks_and_alternatives) WP:AFD it says "Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus." I thought I had until 17:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC), since first redirection vote was made on 17:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC).

Is it possible for you to undo/reverse the redirection so that I can add my comments for keeping the article? You can then review again. I went into great details as to why nominator and others are mistaken. I looked up at the policies and guidelines and did my research and all.

Thank you.

Neckhumbucker (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Is it who I think it is? GRINCHIDICAE🎄 17:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• No, though I thought it might be. It's on its way to higher authorities at the foundation. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah someone pointed it out to me as well and I was suspicious but their mannerisms are...different. Also mind having a look at this and whether it meets nprof? Academia isn't my area of expertise...GRINCHIDICAE🎄 17:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I see that you have blocked Range ‪‬2A02:C7D:0:0:0:0:0:0/33. This covers my IP address, and the usual range of it. (My IP seems to be different every day.) The range is enormous, and the period very long. The instructions on what to do in this situation are confusing and useless. It looked like it would have been possible for me to create an account (I didn’t go through with it), but as an inexperienced editor I would not have been able to work this out.

So a very large number of people are going to be discouraged from editing Wikipedia.

If the idea is that anyone who is affected by the block should create an account, then the instructions need to be improved to give a clear route to this option. In the meantime, I respectfully suggest that the period of the block should be reduced.

Best wishes Sweet6970 (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, but the idea on our side is that this will prevent a lot of work reverting vandalism and poor contributions. Drmies (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your work on trimming the Yadvendradev Vikramsinh Jhala article! Kj cheetham (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Sure thing--and same to you. I saw you had worked on it. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Drmies,

Thank you for looking into the sockpuppet the other day. Another weird thing has happened. There was a user by the name of "Pretzel butterfly" which, after trying to WP:POVPUSH some very WP:BLP-violating things at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and engaging in obviously WP:SEALION/sealioning behavior, has now "mysteriously vanished" and had their username changed (current: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Vanished_user_824723089547&offset=&limit=500&target=Vanished+user+824723089547). Their initial edits pattern, long silence, and then this return under a "hyper polite to the point of being frustrating" assumed persona match what was described to me as a "sleeper sockpuppet", and their initial edit summaries (such as "I responded to your comments on The Dragon Prince talk page" [6]) look similar to the "Iluvdonuts" sockpuppeter to me. There was also a string of someone(s) who were harassing my talk page, telling me to kill myself, which were so nasty that the usernames were stricken from the record along with their edits and edit summaries. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

As for your comment made here [7] the difference, which I'm sure looks like a contradiction to you as a native English speaker, comes from the fact that English is not my primary language, but two other languages which are very different in their structure and rules - are. That's the reason for a slight misunderstanding. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, my problem was with the difference between "personal opinion" and "scientific research". My first language isn't English either, but what matters here is that if someone writes up some academic article, and it's published in a peer-reviewed paper, it has become a more or less accepted statement, far beyond "personal opinion". I mean, one would assume that what may have started as an opinion was proven by facts and arguments, and stamped with approval by peer reviewers, external readers, an editorial board. And if it's cited in a later study, that adds to its validity. Take care, Drmies (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey Drmies. Having been involved with (blocked) George Maverick (et al.), I was monitoring the sockpuppet investigation. Since you blocked a few confirmed socks a few hours back, but haven't blocked the account that sparked the investigation, Desmond Maverick, I was just wondering if that was an oversight? Thanks for working on the investigation. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

P.S. I've just noted eight additional sleeper account candidates based on name-matching at the investigations page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep the faith, brother. Tiderolls 03:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Hey. We gotta stop this nonsense, and get together next time. Roll Tide. OMG this may not have been the greatest ever, but it was good. I still think the second LSU game is the best--but Smith, and Harris, and Jones, they really deserved all of this. I was not confident at halftime, I'm telling you. That shit that OSU pulled on Clemson? I am still flabbergasted by it. And then we beat them. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Hahaha....congrats, Professor, your Alma Mater came through again :) Tiderolls 05:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• It was quite a game. Just promise me we're meeting up between then and next time, Tide rolls. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thought you might be interested in seeing Walt Whitman and Abraham Lincoln. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Whoa, that is some really, really impressive work. I'm going to share it with my American lit colleagues. Thanks for writing that up, and for letting me know. Drmies (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

is back at it today. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 15:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Drmies. I work for bitFlyer, a cryptocurrency company. I previously proposed an expanded version of the bitFlyer page on Talk that was approved and implemented here after multiple editors agreed it was an improvement and used good sources. However, someone has since come along and deleted most of the page without discussion. They even deleted most of the page of the draft I had in my user-space. I wanted to ask if you had time to take a look and – if you also agree the proposed version was better – to restore it once again as consensus. Sebastien0693 (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Hello Sebastien, and thank you for your note. I'm a bit puzzled--yes, you posted on my talk page a while ago, though I wonder how I got involved in this (maybe because I got millions and millions of dollars doing paid editing for Intel, haha). But you said there that one editor "said the references were good", linking to this comment by David Gerard, who didn't say that at all. So that JzG would edit the page a bit comes as no surprise to me, and that the edits were made in your draft is also not surprising. If your question is about this edit, from 16 August, you'll have to ask JzG about it. JzG knows this stuff better than most other editors. In addition, I don't know to which extent you can call your draft (and thus the old live version?) a "consensus version"--clearly JzG didn't agree. And again, I'm not sure where I come in: this should be discussed with the editor who made the edits. Personally I don't really care about the userspace version, but I do care about what's in the live version. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi Drmies. Thanks for taking a look. I guess Guy Macon just said the proposed draft was “an improvement.” David Gerard said “Main thing is solid 100% mainstream RSes, no crypto news sites, no crypto news site reprints, no Forbes contributor blogs, no barely-reskinned churnalism, etc.” Shortly after Gerard said the draft had “no… churnalism” Jzg said it was “all…churnalism” and deleted most of the page without discussion. I guess I was hoping you would weigh in and – if you agree the prior version was better – that would form a 3/4 consensus. Or, if you do feel there are problems, your feedback would be welcome. Thank you. Sebastien0693 (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Sorry, Sebastien, but I see no reason to disagree with JzG's edit. Where did David Gerard say that there was no churnalism in a version they looked at? Drmies (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
      • In this edit I linked to. To clarify, are you saying you agree with Jzg that it is all churnalism or just that you are not participating? Sebastien0693 (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Abuse of admin powers by Drmies and 331dot. Thank you. Courtesy notice because the reporting user cannot. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Ooooooooooh that was that editor! Yes, that was...well just another timesink. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Judging by the number of times your name has come up at WP:ANI lately, you must be doing something right! Barnstar duly awarded. Mjroots (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Mjroots, thanks--but I don't know if that is a thing to be thankful for. It seems some people think I'm heavy-handed sometimes, and maybe I am. But one of those things was for the removal of what I considered to be BLP-violating content, and I don't understand why people would want to edit-war with an administrator when the administrator invokes the BLP. That's just silly. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I knew when I first met you there was a whiff of George Soros about you. Glad you finally came clean. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Ha, yes. In all honesty, it's like all of them lost my address, and I've been living off of my regular salary for a while now. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

What's with that guy? Near as I can figure, he's been going around adding favorable information about right-wing politicians, while removing unfavorable information. pbp 16:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing with "that guy". He is an editor. - CharlesShirley (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

He is, but as you know, Charles, I have some questions about some things also. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Lest we not forget his ANI thread which got mysteriously archived without any solution after engaging in multiple personal attacks against numerous editors including myself without a single diff substantiating it. Funny how that works. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 17:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

If edits like this are anything to go by, it seems to me that a topic ban might be appropriate...CUPIDICAE💕 16:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

How can you talk about a salmon-themed pinewood derby car and not provide a picture of it? -Gouleg🛋️ (Talk • Contribs) 16:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• I had promised another editor I'd get these pictures; I'm sorry. I need Mrs. Drmies to take the pictures for me: she does quality. I'll get on it, I promise. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Drmies,

Please take my edits in good faith, I'm not trying to vandalise as I'm sure you can tell, as I'm actually spending time adding to this page. Please in specific tell me what I have copied from genius because this is not the case and I have not cited them once. At the very least can the edits I did to the Discovery be reverted as they are really in-depth detail edits that took a lot of research and time. Finally, please send me a message before taking action against me as I'm trying my best here and I've spent way too long on this article so I would appreciate if my edits were not simply undone especially when I don't understand the issue. Thanks. TwoTrappy22 (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• TwoTrappy22, I have no intention of taking any action against you. But as AngusWOOF said, you should consider the comments of other editors before reverting or complaining. Between the two of us, Angus and I have probably edited tens of thousands of articles. AngusWoof has done a lot of work to clean up your article, and so has another editor, User:Fejkxk. And User:Lee Vilenski. In other words, this is a collaborative project and all of us try to make these articles the best they can be. I don't understand your repeated assertions that you didn't cite genius.com: you did it right here in this edit, SEVEN times, and you restored them later on. But all these questions and comments about content are better asked on Talk:Digga D. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but you simply refer to a huge edit I did, nothing in specific, still not sure which part of it cites genius but nevermind, i'll move past this, it is a waste of time since both Angus and yourself believe I did so, hence I probably did. Forget this. Secondly, I'm not complaining, simply communicating, trying to understand and work together. I agree this is a collaborative project, as it should be. My only query now is restoring the work did on the Discovery section. ThanksTwoTrappy22 (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course - I've added to my watchlist, and I think the Canada birth place is correct. I'll look to expand in the future soon as well. GiantSnowman 09:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks! Drmies (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you remember User:Billy Hathorn? Look at the earliest history of Pete Flores. Is that odd at all to you, or just bad copycatting of the very tediously detailed way in which Billy wrote about state legislators? Marquardtika (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• I remember Billy Hathorn: if you want the most miserable and tedious interactions, Billy's your man. Wait. I see what you mean. Drmies (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Marquardtika, (talk page stalker) Billy Hathorn? I've looked through thousands upon thousands of his edits (for Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20110727- he created quite the mess...) , so I'm a bit of an expert. It's possible but seems unlikely, as Billy and his socks almost never user non-automated edit summaries, had a poor grasp of how the wiki worked, had chronic copyright violations, would use even less reliable sources (such as himself and Findagrave), and also now only really socks with ips. So there's not similarities there, but the ref bombing and general topic area (Conservatives in the bible belt) is an overlap. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 22:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Well, I hope you're right, Moneytrees. But there's User:DailyDip to consider. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
      • @Moneytrees: Thanks for the info, and for all of your hard work on the case. Billy really did us dirty. You're probably right about your thoughts on socking. I have found with state legislators that newly created articles often follow the model of existing articles, which could be the issue here. Marquardtika (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I am sort of temporarily back. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Haha Back in Black. I played that for my kids yesterday; they're not really getting it. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

If you are around, I could do with your oversight with user Wildcursive. You previously gave the user a week long block a few months ago after their last round of edit warring / misleading edits. User is unable to edit around the topic of Covid or China without introducing rather obvious levels of bias and edit wars to reinstate various NPOV terms, or misrepresent sourcing and create WP:SYNTH issues. I have gone the obvious path of warning, but the user doesn't approach the talk pages and just keeps pushing unencyclopedic content with edit summaries regularly invoking "Don't cover for dictator China!", "1st Amendment Does Not only protect leftist media who were mouthpiece of that bloody evil China!" or similar. This sort of stuff goes back months across numerous articles. Koncorde (talk) 07:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks. I left them a warning. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, it seems like you remove some of my edits on Moira Dela Torre's wikipedia page. May I mind asking you, why use "unverified" as an excuse when all of the other nominations does not exactly have it's own source as well yet you did not consider those as unverified once? Ylonagaricstar (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• There are two things: content must be verified, and awards must be notable; even in K-pop articles they stick to that rule. If an award is notable, I can expect that coverage at least exists; it just needs to be added. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• I could place a dozen more "citation needed" tags in there. If you actually want to improve this article, that's the place to start. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, there is yet another sock from the AnatoLion's farm -- Moëtley (talk · contribs). Please block them too. Thanks --A.Savin (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• And a new one: Βυζαντιον (talk · contribs). Semi-protection for İzmir is desirable too. Thanks --A.Savin (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Since you thanked me about Russell (surname) yesterday, perhaps you could take a look and act as you see fit. The WP:SPA continues unabated, even after I warned them for edit warring (and previously started a Talk thread in which they have shown not the slightest interest), but I am up against 3RR. Agricolae (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Ugh. Yeah, I didn't think that person was going to stop. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I did find a source for the 'de Rosel' origin of Russell, but it is in a 1918 book with the ghastly title of Surname Book and Racial History, which appears not to be a work reflecting the sensibilities of modern scholarship. I did find an exposition by Horace Round specifically addressing the Rousell vs de Rosel origins for the prominent Russells of Kingston Russell, which once I read it through may justify a mention as a way of introducing the possible toponymic origin with an actual citation. It is somewhat annoying that I find myself doing the work on documentation, just because the other editor won't stop putting it in without any, but it will probably take less time than getting them to stop. Agricolae (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
    • If the editor messes with it again I will block them, and indefinitely block them from editing that article. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Henry B. Guppy suggested the de Rosel possibility, albeit only for Russell's in one area of the U.K., in 1890, in Homes of Family Names in Great Britain (London: Harrison and Sons). John Leslie Hotson talks about the Russell in Chaucer, and (most think not very plausibly) linked it to John Russell. Do not pay too much attention to Chaucer's red fox, though, lest you attract English professors to this user talk page. Uncle G (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Someone is using your username while giving warnings to other editors [8][9]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Should I be flattered? Drmies (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I would like to see someone else using my username, but I am still the only Ktrimi around. Well, who knows what the future brings: one day I might have my own fans :P Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I want to thank you for the work you've been doing to uphold Wikipedia's policies and fight disruptive editing, particularly relating to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. I saw some particularly nasty remarks made to you while you were doing your work to defend Wikipedia's policies, and I hope you know that I condemn those remarks and I really support and appreciate your work recently. I hope you stay well and I hope you have a good day. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Hey, I appreciate that. In fact, I expect to be dragged to ANI at any moment, haha, for that very incident you're thinking of, and I appreciate your kind words. One of the things that not all editors understand is that our talk pages are not free-speech zones, and that talk about BLM activists is really a BLP violation, besides a horrible equivocation. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• To be properly relevant, should that cookie not be cooked on the outside with ice cream in the centre? I suspect that Doktoro may have meant "equivalence". But maybe xe didn't. Uncle G (talk) 06:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The doctor was trying to sound fancy. Hello Uncle: how are you doing? Drmies (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I am confident that there is a Old High Gallifreyan rhetorical term if you want to sound fancy. Uncle G (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the cookies! Granada837 (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

	Have this powerful doge!
	I am sorrie about the rifle, I take it back and give you dis, Very stronk doge, Good companioné! -- KindCowboy69 ☮ 02:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'll take the doggo, anytime. Thanks Drmies (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Drmies, I wanted to take this off the talk page since this is an editor behavior, not content question. Also, I'm open to constructive criticism so if you think I'm screwing up, please tell me now vs at ANI! That said, please correct me if I'm wrong, I think, by your comment here [[10]] you are concerned that I am rejecting the consensus to include the material entirely. To be clear, I'm not removing the basic content since consensus for inclusion was established. Here is the difference between my earlier full removal (reverted by NickCT) and the article after my latest edit to that section [[11]] (scroll down to just above line 114 to see the diff). The version I support is Shinealittlelight's [[12]]. That is the version I have restored (SAL's version vs mine, again section above line 114 [[13]]). I would be very happy to try to discuss this with Activist but unfortunately they take a strong battle ground view to any criticism of their edits. I've strongly considered taking them to ANI given their history of edit warring and personal attacks[[14]][[15]][[16]] and disparaging talk page/edit summaries (all predate any interaction I've had with them). In this case Activist originally, BOLDly added the material. I reverted. Activist didn't go to the talk page to get consensus as a next step, instead they restored it. None of that is strictly relevant here other than they haven't shown a willingness to try to find compromise with other editors. I haven't removed the basic content since consensus for inclusion was established by NickCT's support for some level of inclusion. I hope that clarifies things. Again I'm ok with your objective criticism and suggestions where my reading of BLP/WEIGTH etc was off. Thanks! Springee (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Springee, I was just telling you what it looked like after a quick perusal on my end of the article history. If you have to go back a few years for warnings addressed at one of the editors, or if you have to explain in so much detail what was actually going on, you will likely have a hard time explaining to people, and convincing them, that you did no wrong. If you are convinced you're fine, that's OK, but I'm just telling you that it didn't look so fine to me. And I wasn't saying that I object, or I'm going to threaten or warn you, or take you to ANI, not at all--I was just saying that it looked to me like if someone was going to take you to some board or other, it seemed to me that you might get sanctioned. That's all. (See, I'm not even talking about content...) Take care, Drmies (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for continuing the work on this! The page was written by like six different users, who couldn't possibly all be different people... Not sure to what extent it was specifically written as a puff piece rather than than just lazy copy-and-paste from various articles and press releases. I found a lot was just lightly paraphrased from the sources so to some extent it may be copyvio. Reywas92^Talk 05:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Reywas92, no, thank you--I saw you were busy, and then I saw what had happened. This certainly warrants some more attention. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

So, in math the rule is that you probably shouldn't bother the editor until it's been 6 months since you submitted your paper. What is it for SPI? (Refs: earlier discussion, SPI page.) --JBL (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• It's been so long since I submitted anything... The last time I got laughed at for writing incomprehensible postmodern jibber-jabber. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I have always thought that math has an advantage over the humanities in that people read math and don't understand it and assume that must be because it's really deep/hard/impressive, rather than because it is incomprehensible postmodern jibber-jabber :). Thanks for your help at the SPI, I should have guessed Purgatorio3 was the same person. --JBL (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Drmies,

There is a noteworthy issue I would like to discuss with you about discrete rightwing attacks on ethnic minority pages of Scandinavia and Europe. Can you send me a PM. --BrownianMotionS (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Check out the contributions of Highschoolprodigy. He is vandalizing the article for Sam Walton, and he has triggered LTA filters. Thank you. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. For the record, I don't think (or have any evidence) that this is an LTA, but they were righteously blocked by Longhair. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

is now live, in case you'd like to take a look. Still a ways to go, but I thought it was ready enough for mainspace. Ended up going with the original title—sources seem to think that the "Seneca mission" was a single, coherent entity. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I was copying pings sent by other editors. Sorry about that. Activist (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• I understand--but just a little bit of cleanup makes it purtier. No apology necessary. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, thanks. I do want to be "purty." Activist (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Doc

Hope all well with you. Could you please restore John Leech (restaurateur) to my user space? I come here seldom and it was Prodded without my having noticed.

Thanks, ^Bongo_matic 03:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Bongomatic, I'm on it. Yes, all is well, reasonably well; we're mostly healthy and stuff, though I'm taking my daughter to the DMV for her learner's permit this afternoon. When I started editing on Wikipedia she was still in diapers; I blinked, and here we are. I hope you are well too--it is always a pleasure to see you. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks & congrats . . . wow! Tempus fugit. When I started editing WP I was in diapers and I'm almost in 'em again. ^Bongo_matic 05:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

May I ask why my edit got reverted here? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1003006874

It is a scientific fact that immortal jellyfish can theoretically live forever, so I'm not sure what's exactly being disputed?

Best,

Golfpecks256 (talk) 03:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• The thing is that first of all it's "theoretically", and second, that really should not be in the lead. One single exception does not undo the general rule, and putting it at the end of the first paragraph of the lead gives it really undue weight. The animal, and a few others, are mentioned very briefly in the article, but a lead should reflect what is in the article in an equitable manner. Does that make sense? Drmies (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi there. I saw your revert here and noticed this added minutes after (and then noticed this actually preceded them both. I assume these two accounts are sockpuppets, but it seems an odd topic to do that with. What are your thoughts? Matt Deres (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Hmm let's wait and see. I reverted, cause it's awful information to add (names of children are usually a no-no), but let's see if they come back to it. Thanks for the note. Drmies (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Sounds good. I would tend to expect socks on stuff that's more... partisan, I guess? I've added it to my watchlist. Matt Deres (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• So, another similar edit and again reverted. Pinging User:Materialscientist as an FYI. Matt Deres (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	This is for dealing with the SPA's swiftly. Celestina007 (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with what is on the Main page now: about seeking solace, in a new year's song. - Have a good 2021! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• You too, Gerda; all the best, and thank you for all your good work. It's much appreciated. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  Good to hear that, again. Today: Vision pictured (not by me), with Arik Brauer in the news, so art in Vienna twice --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  ... and today Jerome Kohl, remembered in friendship --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  You never cease to remind me of mortality! Drmies (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  The music will stay, and what he wrote about it. Read In Freundschaft, perhaps ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they didn't appear to be constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, Please ask Teahouse for assistance. Sonkoor (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah I'm good, thanks. See your own talk page for your own warning--and I'll add a template that teaches you how to do edit summaries. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Looks like you'll never be their shaax, Drmies. Sad.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It breaks my heart, but you know, I'm not sure it would ever work. Will you be my shaax? Drmies (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Based on the translation of this article I will say yes, but a boozier, classier version. I'm thinking shaax + Grand Marnier or Courvoisier. On the other hand, I could never be your Shaq as I am the absolute polar opposite on every imaginable metric.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Yeah and he even has a beard these days... Wow, so it's tea. Hmm someone needs to get in the Somali wiki and write up Mate--in fact, I'm going to make some right now because YES I'm the kind of admin who has mate in their kitchen cabinet! Drmies (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
        • I drink iced Yerba Mate from the market across from my office. Does that count?-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
          • Sure it does. Update: I discovered that I don't like it. It's too bitter; I don't put sugar in my tea or coffee but that would help, I guess. So I'll give my stash to this supersmart Argentinian student who's spending another semester here, God knows why. Drmies (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

This probably needs to be protected again, given this... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• There's a whoooole bunch of vandals under those IPs, and one really, really sad person. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For allowing me to get some sleep dealing with the TikTok vandals. Good luck finding someone to take over ;) I'll be back in about 18 hours. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Hey, thanks for all the work. I showed your log to my daughter; she was impressed. I don't do scripts, so I'll do what I can... Natti natti! Drmies (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Awesome! Shinyedit^bonjour. 01:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• Hehe they're probably twitching their fingers in their sleep. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  lol ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Drmies - I just sent you an e-mail. I don't usually bother with the ygm template, on the grounds that someone usually knows when they've received an e-mail. However, it's been suggested to me that e-mails sometimes bounce from your account, so just wanted to check that you've got it. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 19:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• This is true, unfortunately. But this one came through, and guess what, zzuuzz already took care of matters. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  Sweet - all's well that ends well. Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 21:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Some of them are amusingly creative. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• You're just saying that cause you're a total swag-tron 9000, instead of a phat a$$ with a huge cock. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Of course. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
    • OK boss babe. Renaissance man. Do you know who's one of the biggest Idiots of Dumaguete? Jauerback. HA! And Acroterion is just one of the baddest b’s you’ll meet, not to mention a Glizzy God, whatever that is. Flier than a mf chicken g. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
      • And, yet somehow my name is still not listed in the List of people from Dumaguete. Wikipedia is so fake. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 22:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
        • I'm telling you, it's the biggest scam in history. OK, I've seen enough juvenile insults to last me a while. I'm going to go grind some dead meat and get my aggression out. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Just a shout out to the all-around bosses, Soundcloud rappers, and Absolute legends in everything. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey,

Thanks for deleting that page. I've managed to exhaust myself with all the rev del's, emailing and whatnot that I had to do :)-- 5 albert square (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Ha, yeah, sure, but sorry if you put in a bunch of clicks. I tend to take the easy way out. BTW I forgot who that LTA was--it's a piece of trash. Thanks for your work there; I was just mopping up. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

-- ferret (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Arbitration

• The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2021 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Wikipedia has now been around for 20 years, and recently saw its billionth edit!

---

I came across Jonathan J. Cole today, and trimmed back the unsourced content, leaving the article one sentence long. All that supports the article now is an interview (primary source), and a self-sourced promo. I also noticed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan J. Cole, and I'm dumbfounded the article was not deleted. I went searching for sources to support notability and found almost nothing. His rank in the British military is also fourth from the top, so he's not high ranking. I've found AFDs to be a crapshoot lately. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• They've been a crapshoot for a long time. I can't rightly tell if NSOLDIER applies here (I don't know much about ranks), but what I do know is that military topics are often deemed inherently notable--that probably reflects something about our demographics, with the boys and the military and all that. I mean, we have hundreds of articles listing the f***ing equipment of every single army in the world--it's the most ridiculous thing. And there's some obvious inclusionists in that AfD. The comment by User:Mztourist makes absolute sense to me. Anyway, the AfD closes with "clean it up!" and yet we still have his LinkedIn in there. Thanks, BTW, for what you did: I saw the history. This and this--insert eye roll emoji. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Then I came across what was surely more "notable people" spam here. "Fannye A. Cook", with a source this time! A minute later I'm scratching my head wondering how this amazing woman [17][18][19] doesn't yet have a Wikipedia article (she will soon). Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I keep lists, and I have a whole bunch of tabs open on my phone with articles about notable people--if you're African, your chance of having a Wikipedia article just went down considerably... Drmies (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks Drmies, as you note some inclusionists regard the 6 presumptions of WP:SOLDIER as automatic passes on notability, when they're clearly not and just ignore all the wording before and after the 6 presumptions and the discussion that led to the Soldier Essay. For me the most outrageous examples are Timothy J. Edens and William R. Gruber both Brigadier Generals who have almost no coverage. Mztourist (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Mztourist, the dude took a motor trip with Eisenhower. How much more notable can it get? Maybe User:K.e.coffman has thoughts. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• AmirahBreen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Drmies, other than WP:OWNTALK, haven't been able to find a relevant policy link, but any thoughts on an editor removing all of their comments on an article talk page? Some background on this editor; several editors including myself have expressed concerned that this editor is engaged in partisan editing around Somali politics; they've reverted that thread as well (which of course, is fine per WP:OWNTALK, but the issue remains to be resolved). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I've alerted the user to the Horn of Africa discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I reverted: that's not cool, those removals. If they're worried about their name, they should change it--or vanish. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I figured, but wanted to be sure; was also thinking the same thing regarding their name concerns. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie, WP:REDACT is a guideline, but it applies in the first case. The ES-stated reason may of course be relevant. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

In November last year, both user:Matthew Josef and user:Joseroyal were blocked for persistent copyright infringements and some other reasons. and now we have user:Blueroyal44. This account registered on 22 January 2021 and is working in the same area as the two mentioned before. My alarm bells are on with this account. Could you keep an eye out for him? The Banner talk 10:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'm about to block and check for a few more things. The range they're on was blocked 31 hours by NJA for "deliberate errors or otherwise unsourced text without edit summaries"; there's no one else active on it. And I see now that I checked some IPs for "socking, logged-out editing" last year, prompted by MER-C, who of course blocked Matthew Josef. Maybe it's time for a pro forma SPI, for future reference. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • An earlier SPI against Mathew Joseph and Joseroyal drew a blank. The Banner talk 10:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Is that so? Strange--but they can be confirmed now. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, @Drmies: I came here to ask you for help with something. Last night, I went to the Teahouse because I needed help translating sources so I could use them in an article.

To elaborate, I've been putting a lot of effort into expanding this article, which is about Naaz Mohammed, a singer from the Netherlands who receives a fairly small amount of coverage in English, but I looked up her name in Dutch Google and got many more articles from news sites about her. So it seems she's more famous in her home country. Anyway, I cannot read any of the news articles I found in Dutch because I do not know the language, hence why I went to the Teahouse, and a user by the name of Cullen328 referred me to you. Is there a chance you could help me with my request? Thank you, versacespace (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

yes I saw IP edit's, which after I while I decided to revert all but now I see by the blocked user's contributions the disruption is much more wide, and I will have to do the same by other article's too (indeed those were not on my watchlist), but I have don't time to do by all, maybe you should arrange those as well mass revereted (the List of sovereign states in the XXXX I will do). Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC))

Ah, sorry I see already everything has been reverted....fine, anyway I'll put a few on my watchlist. Cheers!(KIENGIR (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC))

Hi,

it seems the IP just won't stop, ([20]), despite I asked to discuss in talk, and I see again made mass amount of reversions in the related pages....(KIENGIR (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC))

KIENGIR, I blocked them for their disruption. It's irritating. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

BilCat (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Hey that's pretty exciting. Tell me it's from my Nigerian prince. Drmies (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• You know what, you're absolutely right and I should have taken care of that earlier--I saw it in the filter but was distracted and should have looked to see if it made it into main space. What I see with a lot of these is that somehow they do make it into main space, despite the filter. Thanks; I suppressed it. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

hi , I noticed you blocked this IP before [21].They have been in Thrombocytopenia[22] and I left them a warning on their talk about Encephalitis (I also noticed their talk page is full of warnings).....do I need to take them to ANI?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ozzie10aaaa, I'm holding back from adminning a bit because it's not fun. You can report at AIV (don't go to ANI, that's a waste of time), or see if ToBeFree or Widr are on call and don't have their quota yet. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • ok, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Hi Ozzie10aaaa, please do use ANI; this isn't obvious vandalism. The second diff link is from a different IP address; you probably mean Special:Diff/1005472302. I've had a look at the recent contributions and would say they're clearly editing in good faith. They have received discretionary sanctions alerts and warnings, so I'd block or ban them without further warning if I see something recent that makes me raise an eyebrow. I have yet to see such a diff, though. Also, they seem to read and respond to talk page messages, so a notification about an ANI discussion could actually lead to a discussion with them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
      • ToBeFree, thank you for actually looking at the edits, which I obviously didn't do... Drmies (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
        • I do have one concern, now voiced at Special:Permalink/1005484061#Personalization_of_disputes. No worries. And I do see the nature of the edit at Encephalitis, but the concern seems to be discussable enough not to require an immediate block for spreading fringe theories or similar. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
          • ToBeFree, would you mind having a look at this? It could be a sock of the previous editor, but I doubt that and I don't have enough reason (or desire) to run CU. A state that ran so much of the world for six centuries somehow isn't big enough to make the list? The history of that template is a mess, and I wonder, mikeblas, what you make of it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
            • I have to admit my history knowledge is full of holes. I see a talk page discussion about the topic, from 2020, ending in uncertainty. Regarding sockpuppetry, I agree it's doubtful. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, you may wish to check also this one Fimbulhorn (talk · contribs), even though the edits are not 100% the same... --A.Savin (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Dropped a few blocks based on that. Plz add to the SPI... Thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

And this one: Smyrneika (talk · contribs) --A.Savin (talk) 11:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked. ST47, Ponyo, I need some advice here. I'd like for you to look over my shoulder and see if there's anything we can do. I'd LOVE to block both the ranges, including account creation, but that's way too much collateral damage, right? Drmies (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • You've got mail. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
    • He is back https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Luwia. Same edits as last socks, he changes same pictures.Shadow4dark (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
      • I wonder if Ponyo can see what can be done besides what I've done, which is admittedly little--I guess we can start semi-protecting everything (sorry Ponyo, I'm not feeling like adminning today). It's just so sad that Luwia can't find something better to do than make these dumb little edits--time to grow up, Luwia. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Congrats on fixing fantasmic page. I'm sorry i added more stuff to its Disneyland section because they probably can't be left up in the air on the ending... Terad2909 (talk) 07:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Following up on this post, a new listing appeared on Zillow two days ago. Butch's [23] is still for sale just down the road. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Damn. So expensive, so ugly. Brr. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, I'm a Commons CU and have confirmed NPatel27 to be a sock of Nabilah Patel, whom you blocked. In addition to needing blocking, it looks as though they're recreating their deleted content in a user page sandbox. Эlcobbola _talk 18:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Fastily, you deleted their sandbox--wanna do the honors? User:elcobbola, thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

It's been recreated... User:NPatel27/sandbox. Эlcobbola _talk 19:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked, deleted. Lunchtime! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

trust the new year and its cool attendant weather is treating you well - always such a pleasant surprise to see you in the neck of the woods of the down under where we seem to flood and burn (whereas your side of the rock seem to freeze and whiteout) - and on the watch list at the same time as There_are_known_knowns shows, as the oft used line from multiple sources play with the phrase there must be something in the air - etc etc... JarrahTree 23:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ha, no freezing here--today we got in the 60s. Good for the gas bill. I saw your note to RFPP go by and thought I'd do something without actually doing something, so I reported the IP and for shits and giggles had a look at the article. As it happened I got an email from the organization that granted me my ministry a few days ago, so yeah, that was right up my alley. Hope you are doing well-- Drmies (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but I need a clarification about the Persia redirect https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persia&action=history

From my understanding of the protection sign the article is protected indefinitely. Is there a place where I request un-protection? Or is it for 500 edits as you requested?--Persian Lad (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Persian Lad, I'm not sure why you're asking me, or why you are saying "as you requested"; the protection was last tweaked by another admin, and before that by BD2412--I've never had anything to do with it. And it's not after 500 edits: it's admins only. As far as I can tell from the history it was done for all the right reasons: disruption, edit warring, copy/paste moves (though the latter was a long time ago). You can take this up on Talk:Iran, but you should first look at Talk:Iran/Archive 18. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Persian Lad: Any change to the nature of the redirect will require consensus, so why not initiate the discussion to seek that consensus first? BD2412 T 15:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Drmies, I was looking for an administrator's help, so thanks for clarifying. I will consult BD2412. Otherwise let me know what you think is most advisable. With best regards.--Persian Lad (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for what have you done with the sockpuppet User:LauraWilliamson, he\she was literally driving me crazy. I would like to ask you how the contents released by sockpuppets are treated. There are millions of such messages in Navalny's discussion[24]. That guy\girl is the same one who reported me and made me take 24h ban for "edit warring"[25], clearly he\she did everything to make me fall into the trap, knowing little about the revert rule. Is there a way to remove that report from my profile? I find it really embarrassing for me, and I don't think I deserve it.--Mhorg (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Mhorg, sure thing. A few things--I see the block was issued by EdJohnston, and Ed knows what he's doing. It is true that the rules for edit warring don't apply (in the same way) for reverts of socks, but at the time of course the socking wasn't known (if you were duking it out with the sock). It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is. Comments by socks can be struck through, with an added note; they shouldn't really be removed from talk pages if they're in a thread. Does that help? Yes, it's irritating and frustrating and time-consuming, and I sympathize with you. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I will spend all night applying these comments, it is my war now. Is there a particular text format that needs to be applied to the sockpuppet comments? Could you give me an example? As for the banner that says I've been banned 24h, who can I ask to remove it? Can I do it myself or do I have to talk to EdJohnston first? Thank you again.--Mhorg (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello Mhorg. You wouldn't be blocked for reverting a known sock, but if you break 3RR it is risky to assume your theory (about who is a sock) will be upheld by the closing admin. You are free to remove the block notice I gave you from your own talk page, per WP:BLANKING. It is a better practice to archive those notices, but it's up to you. Removing comments from sockpuppets could get you into hot water, so it's better to ask an admin to do any cleanup you think necessary. If you want, you can install a Gadget that causes the names of blocked editors to be struck out when you are viewing talk pages. This helps the reader if socks have been active. Ask me for details. EdJohnston (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks EdJohnston. I appreciate it. Mhorg, I'm not one for gadgets so I'd go with <s>...</s>. Right now I'm listening to a lawyer droning on and on and on, meaninglessly, and that kind of occasion is perfect for such repetitive tasks. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I blocked this guy. You tagged him as CU-confirmed but, I'm guessing, forgot to actually place the block. ;) Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

LOL. What a n00b!-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Reaper Eternal. Ponyo, my sock nose was sniffing very well today. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

There is road construction right outside my office; all I can smell is asphalt and tar. It is not a good day to be Ponyo.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Alex (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for the successive blocks, especially the user who was giving legal threat. This is to let you know that it is much appreciated. Ashleyyoursmile! 19:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, I appreciate it. You're doing well: I feel confident following your lead when you give out warnings and such. Yes, that legal threat, that was kind of dumb, and an easy block to make. Ha, I hope you're not using level 1 warning! Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for the advice and kind words, I don't use level 1 warning these days for obvious vandals and spammers. They are not worth our time. :) Ashleyyoursmile! 06:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, hope you are well! I want to ask your advice on how best to proceed to respond to your comments of February 6, 2021. The page I am helping edit is the only Wikipedia page I have edited, so want to be sure that I understand the most appropriate way to respond to your requests and improve the page. So a few questions for you:

1. You commented on several sections that you removed. I understand your concerns and agree with them. Per your recommendations, we will find other "homes" for the information you removed. From what I see, I should thank you for your work and consider those issues closed ... is this correct? 2. Your request to "prune" certain sections and add secondary sourcing is understood and I will do that. Is there anything specific I should do when this work has been completed? 3. I have filed a COI statement for my participation. What happens with that statement and how will I know if there are still concerns with my participation? 4. From what I have read, it appears I should remove the flags at the top of the page when I believe the issues have been addressed. Is this correct, and is there anything else I should do in addition to this?

Thanks for your advice ... Best, amccord — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amccord (talk • contribs) 14:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Amccord, I'm running around a bit so I'll take it one thing at a time. Your COI declaration on your user page looks fine to me, and I appreciate you doing it. BTW I didn't really think that you were on payroll, but it's important to note that a COI doesn't require payment. Nothing happens "with" that statement--it's just there so we know. As for the article, some editors/administrators maintain you should not edit the article at all, and that you should propose changes via the talk page, with the "edit request" template. Here, look at this, Wikipedia:Edit requests. Personally, I think it depends. Inveterate spammers should stay out of articles, but you are more a goodwilling hobbyist, if you don't mind me saying so, and I have some faith in you. But don't be surprised if others are more wary, OK? I think the IP user who left a note on your talk page and John from Idegon are more strict than I am, and their opinion matters as much as mine. In the meantime, two things: information should be based on reliable, secondary sources, and it's probably best to leave the tags alone for now. Thanks for your note, and good luck. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Drmies. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Down Second Avenue, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 06:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The identical content is back again as a draft, on the draft's talk page Draft talk:Newstonia, and as the user page version [26], although the userpage has since been replaced by the simple statement that the user is the King. Given the identical content and the fact that Mightypug100 claims to be the King (i.e., Blake Smith), the user must be a sock of User:KingBLAKE2021. Meters (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• The sheer stupidity of it. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • One can only hope that King Blake will get the point eventually. Meters (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The only infinite thing in the Universe... At least that makes it easy to detect. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• As a side note, and since we're already here, mind giving a helpful hand for this? It's not exactly anything pressing, it's just something that needs a whole bunch of annoying page moves (those I list, and then probably a whole bunch more once I check the other categories) and well if I (technically can't at the moment) or somebody else could do it, that'd be a nice way to avoid a wee bit of a backlog of technical requests... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• I am not sure what you are asking. I'll have another look tomorrow, maybe I'll understand it then. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Good night then. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • RandomCanadian, sorry, but this is not my area of expertise. I don't know Mjroots was able to help you out, but I'm really not the one to help with this. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Yeah, fixed, he got around. I was only asking if you could do the page moves (with the inherent deletions) then, to save some time, but anyway fixed for the moment (though there'll probably be a whole bunch once I go through the rest of the category tree so that might be annoying to deal with). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Please block this user: Special:Diff/1006858076 Golfpecks256 (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Not really much point, it's their only edit and I suspect it's a pretty dynamic IP. I have, however, RD3'd the diff and changed your link to a non-mobile diff for ease of use. Primefac (talk) 11:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Thanks Primefac. One wonders how, since the deletion of the shortcut WP:ANI 2.0, users I've never heard of before find their way here. Drmies (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I've stopped wondering at how or why users find the places they do; the weirdest are things like article-creation requests on the subpages of templates (like, those that aren't even called directly). Primefac (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, can you take a look at this newly created article (Ronald Lee Moore), specifically this section please: Ronald Lee Moore#Serial podcast and check for BLP violations/undue weight/npov? The section takes up almost half the article, and is overly detailed and speculative based on dubious sources consisting of UPI, Medium, Oxygen, Baltimore Sun, and Heavy. Thank you, Some1 (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't really fall under BLP since he's been dead for over a decade (I believe WP:BDP is at most two years), so you'd really want to look at any potential WP:V violations. Without having read any of the references, I think that the three paragraphs could be shortened to one, summarizing the points of a) a podcast mentioned him, b) there's doubt about it, and c) there's now more interest in possible murders he may have committed. Primefac (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Thanks Primefac, I've shortened and summarized it. Some1 (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Nice work, Some1. Thank you, and thank you also, Primefac. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that you intervened at one point regarding User:BigDwiki (given the mutual Alabama interests). An account (User:ManuelLopezz) created a few months ago just quacked loud enough to get my attention. I'd imagine any direct connection to BigDwiki would be stale by now, but what about a connection to User:LambertsCafe, a sock that was blocked last year? I voiced my suspicions here that BigdWiki likely has access to colo or secure VPN connections (IT related job), so not sure how useful checkuser will be in any case. He's well aware of how it works, and could be taking steps to avoid detection.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• I see the big guns showed up. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Ha, yes! Nice to see that got handled quickly, appreciate you weighing in. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Speaking of ManuelLopez, UTRS appeal #40523 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The sentence in italics, is that the request? Drmies (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Eh? The part after, "Appeal Content". 331dot is dealing with it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Yes, I see it now, thanks. You know, it's a terrible thing, all these administrators who are just hating on people in their pet topic areas. User:Ohnoitsjamie's well-known hatred of LA is just awful. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Funny that they never explicitly deny the block evasion. My guess is that they made an effort to avoid using previous IPs in the hopes that checkuser would exonerate them. Unfortunately, they were less clever about edit patterns, topics, and language. Before we move on to other exciting matters, I'm on the fence about the "Federal discrimination lawsuit" section, as it was re-introduced by a sock IP. While I'm opposed to public-relations scrubbing of articles, aren't lawsuits of theis nature somewhat common? I'm leaning toward removing it, per WP:NOTNEWS. The police shooting one is another; I'm not sure we should be including that sort of thing unless it receives wide news coverage.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure about that lawsuit either: the narrative is clear as mud, and the sourcing sub-par (only one secondary source; that website should be removed). But the shooting, I can tell you from experience, that was a big deal. You'll notice I cut some of the sourcing (someone thought we should include the Washington Times, and note that headline), but I'm sure better sourcing can be found. It was a very happening thing, for quite a while, not just in Mobile. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
          • I'd say keep the "Federal discrimination lawsuit" section as it impacted a policy/procedure change on the part of the university. With better sourcing. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
            • Sounds good to me. OK, back to the more pressing matter of blocking everyone who's ever edited Bay Minette. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

So, I understand my user pages are going to be speedily deleted. I want to thank you for finally doing this. I've been using them for over a decade now, and the more effort I put into them, the more I worried they'll be deleted eventually. Ironically, that meant I kept a low profile on the rest of Wikipedia out of fear that my user pages will be discovered and deleted. Which... I guess probably made matters worse?

Anyway, I'm not going to contest the deletions. I've made backups and will be using a spreadsheet after this.

I look forward to resume being a normal contributor to Wikipedia, if you will have me. Thanks, and have a good day. <3 Sabre (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Sure we'll have you. You sure you got the backups? They're not deleted yet, but I can always go back and save them for you. Please note that I only nominated them, I didn't delete them; I figured I'd have another admin look at them first, but I appreciate you abiding by the rules. Take care, Drmies (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Yep, I've got everything, thank you for offering nonetheless. It's the end of an era for me! But it's also been a lifetime since I've been "able" to contribute to Wikipedia, so I look forward to it now. :) Sabre (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Well, if you are looking for something to write up--this may be a stretch from what you had, but hey, it's a necessary thing: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index. ;-) Drmies (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Faith Freedom International—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Snuish2 (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I saw you undid my revision to Reiki because it undid "Summer PhD's work". However, his work appeared to involve removing most of the relevant content in the article. While I agree that the article needs improvement, simply deleting most of the content isn't an effective way to do that. --Harimau777 (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking about the above user's edits and whether we need to do something about them when I saw this in the user history.

Harimau777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) really likes going through the page histories of articles and restoring old information. See [27], [28], [29], [30], and [31].

My first thought was that Harimau777 had originally added the information using a series of usernames and is now socking to retain it, but I am not sure that the evidence for that passes the WP:DUCK test. To me it looks like a simple case of Harimau777really liking going through the page histories of articles and restoring old information.

I am thinking that there is a simple solution: ask Harimau777 to post their proposed changes to the article talk page and discuss them rather than just making the change and getting reverted. Note that Talk:Wing Chun# Restoring Past Deletions was posted one minute after making the change. I am suggesting talking about major changes before making them. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon, thank you for looking into this. Harimau777, if you want to claim that in 2015 SummerPhDv2.0 was simply "deleting most of the content", when in fact they were (please don't assume editors are men) carefully editing the article in a series of edits, explaining every single one of them along the way, you have another thing coming. And, at the risk of sounding arrogant, I think Summer and I both probably know a bit more about editing this encyclopedia than you do; between the two of us we have a few hundred thousand edits here compared to your 29. So yes, you may discuss these things on the talk page, but simply restoring huge chunks of content without an explanation and without addressing the issues, that's not OK. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 12:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello admin, can this 5.109.222.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) be blocked as soon as possible? --Ashleyyoursmile! 12:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks. They'll be back, and I may not be on here for much longer; you can see in Recent changes if anyone else is on call. Drmies (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you, will do. :) Ashleyyoursmile! 12:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I have seen your messages at User talk:Leafs-fall-around-me and I have a feeling that the editor is possibly evading its block. I am not familiar with figure skating (and I do not know if you are either) but I am with ice hockey. After looking at the edtior's edits I saw that this edit and this edit seem to be from the same person (even the usernames are similar). In ice hockey's case – I thought about some of the blocked editors, but it seems that it is a different person. So I am thinking that this could be someone from the figure skating area. Any blocked editors come to mind if there are any? – Sabbatino (talk) 08:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Sabbatino, the account is too old for me to do anything. I see now that there is a similarity between the edits, but it's somewhat general, but the user name, I don't see that. The one leaf is a leaf, the other a hockey player, no? Unfortunately this is the first case of problematic editing in figure skating that I ran into, so I don't have any thoughts about whether this might be someone who's already blocked. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for answering and clarifying. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I have seen that recently User:Avavavavsucka was blocked for being a sockpuppet of User:Jinfnff. I think the same user has created a new account: User:NotHixeywiki. I believe it is the same person because of the similar name to other accounts that were also blocked for being sockpuppets of Jinfnff. — Telenovelafan215 (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Telenovelafan215, thank you; I'll have a look. For the record, I have no doubt that Jinfnff is an incarnation, not the master. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

[probably unrelated] Does Special:Contributions/LeandraValerio ring any bell? They got a hit in the LTA filter, don't know what exactly it is, although the user page is grossly inappropriate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Also with a link to the same website: Special:Contributions/DewittGonyea908. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Just wondering if Emre19051453 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and the many sockpuppets referred to in the block log are related to the ongoing sockfarm at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KızılBörü1071 (see the lengthy history at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KızılBörü1071/Archive also). Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• I commented there. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll just start the LTA page with KızılBörü1071 in that case. I wasn't 100% sure about Stephan1603 as the edit made wasn't that similar to their usual attempts on that article, I figured checkuser would pick them up as a match without me needing to accuse them. FDW777 (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Don't know if the following fit the pattern (this is from a report at WT:MILHIST), but there's clearly a lot of correlation between the following 3 accounts: should I file at SPI?

• BergamottenTee (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ödegay31 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• TalhaYunus01 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

And, in any case, SPI or not, all three have been engaging in egregious WP:PA and some action is in order... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• @RandomCanadian and Drmies: These are socks. I remember the style of edit-summary on Turkish articles, but I can't remember the sockmaster. I'm going to indef User:BergamottenTee anyway as they're threatening other editors. Black Kite (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Black Kite, I saw the block while I was checking around, and I appreciate it. So Talha is blocked now, as a sock of InellectualThinker (talk · contribs)--very inellectual. El C, you may have an interest in this. The other two are not related to each other, as far as I can tell nor do they have anything else going on. Thanks all, Drmies (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Oh, wrong master - I was assuming Gala19000. Mind you, they're *very* similar... Black Kite (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Ah well, Special:Contributions/Ödegay31 seemed to be quacking in a megaphone (this is particularly suspicious - "Exactly!"), but if that's all. @Black Kite: You usually don't need to ping an user when you're commenting on their talk page... Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Oh yeah, whoops :) Black Kite (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
        • Black Kite, it is entirely possible that you are correct (and, BTW, I am jealous of your memory). Maxim}, maybe you have some ideas here, since you last worked on the Gala19000 case? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Drmies, thanks for ping. So, it took a week. Okay. Anyway, as promised, I've set IT's block not to expire. El_C 02:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Yes it is Gala19000. I got strange email from his other sock Maistara today.maybe worth to check User:Maistara Shadow4dark (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
        • That user is long blocked; if their email was abusive, I'll be happy to remove their email function. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

          Drmies, to respond to your ping earlier, it's not really clear looking at the CU data/logs. The case I looked at in September was confusing too. I'd suggest working with behavioral evidence here if there's anything left to do. Maxim_(talk) 14:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mr.User200: do you have comments? Shadow4dark (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I received a mail too. From, Maistara a Blocked Sock puppet of Gala19000 or Randomuser12356. That sockmaster have the nasty habit of sending threats and insults to other editors mails. My talk page was protected some time ago because of this. And this is a clear example of LTA. Just look at my Main User page there is a list of Turkish-AKP IPs editors or Pro Erdogan accounts.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Most likely this accounts are related to the AK Trollss. Also Ogeday31 should be CU checked in my humble opinion.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• FDW777, I need you to do cleanup on Battle of Scimitar Hill. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Well ahead of the curve. FDW777 (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Also see the LTA page I created at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/KızılBörü1071 for frequent targets. FDW777 (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Precious

Nine years!

Did you know that I pass this reminder now only to users who edited during the last year? (... because the others can still use last year's reminder, and it saves me the decision if I should remind a banned user which I sometimes do anyway ...) I'm always happy when I can go ahead without checking because I just saw contributions!

Just yesterday I thought of you and your phrase about the wonderful world and "I wish you much patience". I'm loosing it, see Reception of Johann Sebastian Bach's music. Do you see what I see? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• We're all getting older and older, Gerda. Thanks! Yeah, I'm still here, still finding things to do--most recently Abdallah Oumbadougou. No, I don't think I see what you see. I see a single contributor, and a ton of text, and no infobox--what am I missing? Drmies (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  Who wrote that, the single editor? No. He took the content, 56k+ of prose, images and references from the author, with whom he has an iban and who is blocked. I see - intended or not intended - a massive provocation of the author whose baby that is. The first edit has what is required for attribution, so two admins told me. (It has no diff, just links, so I don't agree that it fulfulls the requirement, but who wants to disagree with admins ;) - The diffs are on the article talk.) - Btw, I have stopped to care about infoboxes in 2015, - it was too bad for my health. I still don't understand why some think the end of civilization is reached because the infobox for Frank Sinatra is now uncollapsed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, I understand that now, and I think it is in very, very poor taste. Yes, I looked at the attribution matter and essentially that's good enough, but "good enough" is only for attribution purposes. Morally and collegially speaking, I think it is repugnant, especially given the iBan, and frankly I don't understand it. I have no doubt that we will revisit this at some noticeboard soon. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you. You are the first admin who understood. That's why you are nine years precious. I remember the pic of your new-born. Clavier-Übung is Mathsci's baby. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, could you look at deleting one of my redirects, Halime Hatun (fictional character), please as it’s the target page and correct title for Halime Sultan (fictional character)? There is strong consensus for this move. Thank you. IronManCap (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Another one: Str1977. A long-term editor, so I don't think it's our person, but they've done it at least twice. It looks like you tangled with them on another subject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, that was some foolishness. That article is still pretty bad; I just removed a bunch of comic book trivia. I find it funny that Martinevans123 even found fault with them--and, significantly, he didn't post a YouTube video on their talk page, which indicates the seriousness of the matter. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Fear ye not. Still plenty of time for that. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• OK that's funny. And true! Drmies (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

On this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gods Unchained (2nd nomination) I actually found a number of non-cryptocurrency-related sources that would support notability (I was writing up a keep !vote as you closed it). I have no intention of creating the article in full at this point or rearguing the AFD, but I would believe that with sources like this from MIT Tech Review that a redirect to Digital collectible card game would be appropriate instead. I just added a couple lines about the game based on that MIT Tech Review source there, since it fits. Since you just closed and deleted that article, I would want to check with you before creating a redirect to the Digital collectible card game article, and fully protecting that redirect per the AFD close rationale until someone has time to make a better article about it. --Masem (t) 19:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Masem, that's fine with me. I'd write up the article for you if I understood the subject matter: a stub is easy to write up I suppose. I wasn't going to do anything with it, maybe just support deletion (and I did read the first AfD), but when I started looking around I found that that first sentence came right off the company website, with just one minor lexical change. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't have enough familiarity with the game to be able to write it, but it is clearly "a search term" and I figured a protected redirect will be a better solution. I'll make sure to drop the AFD notices on its talk page to warn on recreation issues. --Masem (t) 01:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Sadly, I'm afraid you might need to intervene again with Evimeader (talk · contribs). After your block and warning about superfluous information, redundant information, useless information, grammar and spelling errors, and wikilinking problems, they have resumed the same problem edits. They often restore edits that others have removed. I suggested seeking a Wikipedia mentor, with no success. Perhaps the most potential for damage to Wikipedia is reflected in their only attempt at communication, which is defiant ("I will not be blocked either. Understand?"). Thanks. Hope you're doing well. Sundayclose (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Can you make a page protection or sth there. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• No, there is nothing there for an administrator to do. Khirurg and Odegay are duking it out and at some point one of em, or both of em, are going to get blocked. An admin cannot decide whether in a case like this one side or the other should win. A violation of "QUOTEFARM" is an editorial decision, not an administrative one. The talk page is the place to form a consensus, which editors can be held accountable to. User:Ödegay31, what surprises me is that you're edit warring and reinserting atrocious content like this, "before any turkish resistance was formed the Greek army started their oppresion by burning villages, killing of turks,rape and killing of women." Surely you can copyedit this properly before you continue an edit war? I see two capitalization errors, one space/punctuation error, one misspelling. Drmies (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Dont know what's wrong with it. The First one was in the article for years which is now edited out. Quotes are allowed in a Wikipedia article and if you look at the context it is very relevant to the topic. Ödegay31 (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
    • If you don't know what's wrong with the passage I just quoted, which you edit-warred back into the article, then I'm sorry to say you may not have the competence in English to work on this project. As for the quotes, Ktrimi, start that talk page discussion and I'll be glad to weigh in. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
      • OK, I agree with what you say. To me the important thing is the edit warring stops; whether the editors stop it or get blocked is not important. Hopefully good faith will prevail. Thanks, Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi again, could you help with moving Artuk Bey (fictional character to Artuk Bey (fictional character) please? I think it might be obvious what’s wrong with the title currently. Thanks. IronManCap (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Does this edit pattern ring any bell as far as socking is related (it looks to me at the very least like a gaming-attempt to up an edit count)? That, and the addition of controversial material to obviously controversial topics... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oshwah or User:Mailer diablo, I need you to do something for me here, since I have to run (literally). Please run CU, then look at the few IP edits (you'll see what I mean). I am convinced that it's User:JohnGotten, but I don't have the time to look at a few of the already confirmed accounts and compare. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Any news on this? @Oshwah:? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, yeah, blocked and tagged. ;-) Drmies (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

They need a TP and everything disabled block. See latest edit. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

That's not against the rules. Drmies (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Drmies! Sorry for the delay responding here. I've been busy and I'm just now getting caught up with the Wikipedia messages, emails, comments, etc. that I received. Did you still need assistance with this? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Oshwah, no worries--I got it. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for letting me know. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance for dealing with the "Korean dinosaur vandal" the range block has worked a treat and I haven't heard anything from them since. I have another favor to ask you. Beginning in October last year, a North Carolina based vandal usually on the usually on the 174.25x.x.x range has been vandalising geological formation articles, changing their locations to completely different countries. These articles are infrequently patrolled, and the list of geological formation articles is vast, and I don't have all of them on my watchlist. The edits are on mobile so warnings don't work. I don't understand how ipv4 ranges work, but is it possible implement a range block to prevent further vandalism?

A list of known IP's.

• 174.253.0.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 24 February
• 174.253.0.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 22 February
• 174.250.160.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 18 February
• 174.253.128.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 12 January
• 174.250.144.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 10 January
• 174.250.180.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 3 January
• 2600:1700:4FE8:5040:A24F:85FF:FEDD:8525 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 12 December (currently blocked)
• 174.253.9.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 8 October

There are almost certainly more that I have missed, as the number of potential target articles is at the very least in the hundreds, but I hope this is enough to narrow down the range. Thanks again. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

As you blocked an account as a sock of Noteduck, and that's been mentioned by Pudeo, you might want to comment at the AE. Doug Weller talk 19:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Doug Weller, I was actually mentioned? That's exciting. I looked at it and it's a lot of words and a lot of diffs. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and I give up with those - it's pretty typical and clearly political. Doug Weller talk 12:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello dear Drmies! I ask you to explain to me why you regard my actions as that I continue to disrupt Wikipedia? Let me give you the following. Boris Grigolashvili's page on the English Wikipedia is dedicated to the national hero of Georgia - Major-General Boris Grigolashvili, who heroically died in the battles for the independence and territorial integrity of Georgia in 1993. The text of the English page is similar to the text of Russian, French and Georgian Wikipedia. The information is perfectly consistent with that officially published in Georgia. There are links to all sources of documentary sources on the Internet. In particular, information that many military operations were planned and successfully carried out under the leadership of B. Grigolashvili and that he was mortally wounded and heroically killed in battles in the Abkhaz war is contained in official Georgian sources, including on the Internet (see the list of references at the end of the page). Now, with regard to information that for an outstanding contribution to the welfare of the homeland and the nation, fortitude and self-sacrifice, shown courage and heroism in the struggle to defend the homeland and its territorial integrity, for skillful leadership, implementation of defense measures, the development and conduct of military operations Major General Boris Grigolashvili was posthumously awarded the Order of Vakhtang Gorgasali, 1st degree (1993). This information is not pretentious, exaggerated or biased. So according to the official Regulations on the award: “The Order of Vakhtang Gorgasali is awarded to servicemen who have shown courage and heroism in the struggle to defend their homeland and its territorial integrity, for skillful leadership, implementation of defense measures, development and conduct of a military operation. The Vakhtang Gorgasali Order has three degrees. The highest is the 1st degree. The awarding of the Order of Vakhtang Gorgasali is carried out sequentially, starting from the 3rd degree. The 3rd degree of the Order of Vakhtang Gorgasali is awarded to persons who have shown the greatest combat readiness when performing the assigned task, The 2nd degree of the Order of Vakhtang Gorgasali is awarded to military and police personnel for the successful fulfillment of combat orders, The 1st degree of the Order of Vakhtang Gorgasali is awarded to persons for outstanding contribution to the good of the Motherland and the Nation, perseverance and self-sacrifice. " You can check this information in the Russian Wikipedia: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orden_Vakhtang_Gorgasali. I also ask you not to delete the photo "Boris Grigolashvili - while serving in the Armed Forces of the USSR in 1983", because As already noted, B. Grigolashvili, in addition to being a general of the Georgian army, devoted 36 years of his life to serving in the ranks of the Armed Forces of the USSR. In this photo he is in the uniform of a colonel of the Soviet army with orders and medals of the USSR. In the main photo he is in a Georgian field uniform during the war in Abkhazia. In connection with the above, I will be very grateful to you if you do not mind restoring the page about Boris Grigolashvili in my edition. I am ready to consider any mutually acceptable compromise proposal. With respect and best wishes, retired major of the Georgian army and lawyer --Accipite7 (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Whatever happens on other wikis really doesn't matter here. You say "official documents", but that also is irrelevant. Your edits were reverted because they were not properly encyclopedic: they were as far from neutral as could be, and you turned the article into some kind of memorial. All that praise wasn't properly ascribed to proper secondary sources either. No, I can't "check" that in the Russian wiki, nor do I need to: on the English wiki you need to write material according to English wiki guidelines. And please don't email me to say things you can say on my talk page. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Sir. Thank you for the comment re: attacking editors. The user in question (since you say I cannot use his name) has been adding sloppy and/or untrue information to these pages ever since he hijacked them many years ago. I created them many years ago using research from the Margaret Herrick Library that was not available anywhere on the Internet. This user initially asked for my research for sourcing which I provided in its entirety, delighted to find a fellow interested in the same subject. He then proceeded to hijack the pages and bully me off the pages entirely, which are now far less accurate and less visually appealing than they were before. I have a life and was tired of the constant bullying, racist or nationalist changes, and reverted edits (and one anti-Semitic remark). Among his infractions are (1)- REPEATEDLY adding fake shortlists even when provided with sourced information that show they were fake, and then threatening to block me for deleting them, (2)- insisting that films made by in sub-Saharan African languages need to be sourced, while those from white filmmakers (including South Africa) do not, (3)- repeatedly adding languages that were not spoken in the film to the "languages spoken" column, even when provided with sourced and documented evidence by a user who actually saw the film, (4)- asserting ownership of the pages themselves by removing flags, and (5)- replacing the name of a country with the politically loaded moniker even when provided with sourced evidence that the host organization (AMPAS) and host country government (USA) object to that name. However, it seems that Wikipedia is only interested in protecting its editors. Not in ensuring the integrity of the pages. Adtran (talk) 13:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• You're making the same unfounded accusations here that you were making elsewhere, and your defense is "they deserved it"--they being Lugnuts. (As for the content, that's not my business. You will need to talk this over on the article talk page, or the project talk page.) My talk page is generally something of a free-speech zone, so I'm not going to block you right now over repeating the same stuff, but if Lugnuts wants to get another admin to look at this, or to take it to ANI, they're free to do so. If you repeat these statements elsewhere, including in edit summaries, I will block you. You are right about one thing: I am interested in protecting Wikipedia's editors. In this case, that's your opponent. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi again, could you look at moving Turgut Bey (fictional character) to Turgut Alp (fictional character) please, as the title is currently the character's alias? Thanks. IronManCap (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem has been solved now, thank you. IronManCap (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Drmies. Hope all is well. Normally I let the odd negative remark directed at me slide (esp. if it's quite funny), but apparently I'm using WP for propaganda. This is after the same editor said I'm a bully and a racist. The same editor only seems to edit in the same topic area, once a year when the films are named for the Best Foreign Language Film/Best International Film at the Oscars per this. I'd appreciate any help with this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• I left a warning for the obvious personal attacks. I can't really comment on the content, of course; as usual, the best thing is always to have a consensus for how this or that should be done in the form of a talk page discussion, RfC, project page guideline, etc. You know better how to navigate that for these articles than I do. For Macedonia, I think "North Macedonia" is now the way to go--but there also it would be good to have something to point at. Isn't there something along the lines of WP:DERRY? Thanks, and take care, Drmies (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi. Sorry, I forgot about this until your latest ping! Thanks for taking a look and issuing a warning - appreciate it. I'm (briefly) aware of the Macedonia/North Macedonia name-change. Like anything along those lines, best to steer clear IMO, so I'm not sure how the names are applied retrospectivly. Thanks again. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Macedonia-related articles might be helpful. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
      • @Lugnuts: I'm not particularly up-to-date with Macedonia, but the usual practice is to call the country what it was at the time, i.e. referring to events in what is now Austria in 1899, we'd say Austria-Hungary; and Alsace in 1899 would be in Germany. Same principle. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, I have no familiarity with the case so am unsure about stepping in myself, but with regards to your RBI on Ha Ha Clinton-Dix I assume Marlon Humphrey should also be cleaned up? CMD (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Hi User:Chipmunkdavis, the question is really whether we think the benefit to the article outweighs the fact that a longterm vandal added the content and can glorify in it; see WP:DENY. For Clinton-Dix I felt not. I think this troll was choosing Alabama-related topics for a reason. But I will leave this up to you. If you think the troll's work is worth keeping, then you can choose to keep it. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

  I'm afraid this article is very far from my areas of competence! I just came upon it as I was removing the GAN templates. I generally deny as a default, but as noted I am unfamiliar with the case in question. Best, CMD (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Shadzarie. The userpage was tagged as a sock but the user wasn't blocked. MarioJump83! 08:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

It's days like today where I realize that since I don't take wikipedia srsly enough, I'm not good at recognizing when people go overboard on the other side of the spectrum. Thanks for helping out there. Per immediately above, I think the only constructive solution is to have Saban leave Bama so these articles aren't targeted...? Sorry about that, I'm sure Lane Kiffin will be available again soon enough. Alyo (chat·edits) 04:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Tide rolls NEED A BLOCK FOR BLASPHEMY HERE Drmies (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I really wish I could help, Professor, but there's a new community desysoping process being discussed. I'd rather not be its Beta case. Roll Tide. Tiderolls 11:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• • Can't wait until I get my byline with Ben Smith and/or BarstoolAuburn exposing the true cabal behind WP. Alyo (chat·edits) 04:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I would be really grateful if you could have a look at this SPI (before it gets closed) concerning a banned editor and their obsession with certain articles. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Hey, I have to be quick. I see plenty of behavioral stuff there. Please tell Oshwah there are things to look for, like their taste for French military victory in Algeria, besides the sometimes poor English. Sorry, gotta run. Drmies (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, there's a lot of behavioural evidence and Oshwah is already looking into it; I was just hoping to get a second opinion before the next passing admin closes the SPI with no action. Hopefully, with a bit of luck, the SPI may still be open by the time you come back. Regards. M.Bitton (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I see that they are now blocked. Many thanks to you and to Oshwah for looking into this. Regards. M.Bitton (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Absolutely. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, please have a look at blocking 39.50.66.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), this IP is making frequent disruptive and vandalising edits to List of Kuruluş: Osman characters despite being cautioned. Thank you. IronManCap (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Well, you warned them. If they continue, report them to AIV. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

If you have a spare 30 seconds could you deal with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tdv123 please? They are active now, and it's an open and shut case. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt action. FDW777 (talk) 09:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm just wondering why you are thanking me for an edit I made over a year ago. What has he done to cause new interest in his editing history? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• A recent edit came by, and I started clicking around and saw the user page... Plus, I don't really enjoy seeing talk page histories like that one. How are you doing, Kudpung? Drmies (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand. There's certainly something weird about that one. I'm enjoying the extra time in my life having reduced my participation in this circus from 6 - 8 hours a day to less than one hour a week. I've bought a new piano. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

music, that's good news, flowers also - they opened an arb case I will not go I will not go - remind me if I fail (more on my talk) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Could you please close the discussions on Halime Hatun (fictional character) and Ertuğrul Bey (fictional character), as there is a consensus now? I suggested the moves, but it has been agreed that these moves should not go ahead. Thank you. IronManCap (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know that, I wasn't aware of that from what I had read on WP:Uninvolved. IronManCap (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

It depends. It's like if you propose something for deletion at AfD and everyone says "keep"--you can then withdraw your AfD and while those usually aren't closed by non-admins, no one would bat an eye. I hope! Hey, if you got a few minutes, maybe you can drop the TV characters and improve a real subject a bit: Turgut Alp. I'd appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, I suspect this falls in your area of interests. Stay well, stay safe. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

You might take a look at this [[32]]. No idea who the master would be but 7 days after opening their account they are placing DS aware tags on other editor's talk pages? 7 days after I started my account I still didn't realize the idea was to find sources vs sharing my known knowledge :D Springee (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah I saw them earlier and had a look, but there's nothing to see. BTW that report of yours was pointed out in the section above, but holy moly that's a lot of words. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I think this is another one to consider [[33]]. I don't like seeing accounts that start with the creation of a RfD. Sadly, no idea who the prior owner might be. Springee (talk) 03:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).

Administrator changes

TJMSmith

Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
• A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.
• A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
• There is a discussion in progress concerning automatic protection of each day's featured article with Pending Changes protection.

Technical news

• When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
• When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
• There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

• By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
• The Kurds and Kurdistan case was closed, authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2021 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AmandaNP, Operator873, Stanglavine, Teles, and Wiki13.

---