User talk:Drmies/Archive 143

Sorry Drmies, I had to revert back past your improvements because the edits by User:Mys 721tx introduced several errors. I've followed them across several articles and unfortunately I didn't have a good way to fix those and preserve your changes. I'll try to clean it up a bit but I'm having to do this with several of Mys 721tx's edits across several articles. Mkdw ^talk 04:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• User:Mkdw, thanks so much for cleaning up and basically doing double the work. I should have looked more carefully at their edit--I am wondering now how I overlooked their removal of a journal article; maybe I just saw "Researchgate" and didn't look any further. Update: I see now that they also messed with Sheng nu. That article has seen so many student (and other) edits that I get the feeling it needs some real cleanup... Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
  • The closer I looked at it, the editor seems to be involved in a cross-wiki edit war with several editors. They also introduced all sorts of errors, removed citation archives, and grammatical mistakes. I had a... frustrating... attempt to try and raise some of these issues on their user talk page, to which they then went forum shopping on 3O, COIN, and as far as IRC to get an Arb involved. sigh. Mkdw ^talk 02:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
    • Haha, they got a former arb involved. Does that count? Drmies (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your previous block of 2804:D45:9660:EB00:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and 187.36.168.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), they are back at 177.69.131.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). wizzito | say hello! 00:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Drmies,

I don't mean to request a phishing effort but I just reviewed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maram Susli and it seems to be overflowing with sockpuppets and SPA accounts that have been reawakened to participate and ask for this article on a controversial figure to be deleted. How are these situations typically handled? Thanks for any oversight or advice you can supply. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• Hi Liz--well, what you're doing now is one of the things you can do. And I agree that the last three deletes have a strong smell of fish--but CU does not bear that out. Still, you are right to find the AfD problematic. An SPI could look at behavioral evidence, of course, and MEATing is certainly a possibility. Drmies (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay. I've found SPI only useful if I can recognize the sockmaster, then filing a case can be very productive. I'll see how this AFD discussion progresses. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello and good day! I thought contacting you would make sense since we interacted involving this a bit ago. I've tried to get more involved at the relevant talk page to try and get the maintenance templates addressed for the IP, however it appears multiple different IPs with roughly the same editing pattern (at least in edit summaries) are quite set on removing the maintenance templates. The pattern seems to be that an editor will restore the templates, provide concerns on the talk page, and then the IP editors will address some of the talk page points (typically with content removal), make a couple of other edits, and then make the claim that the maintenance templates no longer apply and remove them despite multiple objections to this on talk. Engagement on the talk page exists but doesn't seem engaging, so to speak.

If you don't mind, could you take a look with your mop hat on and see whether or not semi-protection or some other remedy may apply? If there is something I can do better please advise  . —Sirdog (talk) 13:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

• I'm actually not sure what to say here, Sirdog. I kind of hate the way they're going about it, with these terse edit summaries (that's putting it kindly), but they did trim the article considerably. I checked a few edits and they seemed reasonable to me--not something I'd go and protect for. Whether this blockbyST47 is relevant, I can't judge; I don't know if we're dealing with a returning disruptive user, but they did a pretty good job cleaning it up, as far as I can tell, and so removing the tags seems fair... Drmies (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that was kinda the "back of my head" analysis as well. Kind of a case of "They A Little Confused, But They Got The Spirit" kind of deal. Not at all ideal collaboration, but workable. I may have gotten lost in the sauce, as it were, hyper-focusing on the templates rather than focusing on just working on the article. End of the day, the IPs are not content disruptive (yet... this statement doesn't give me much hope... but AGF) so I should be focusing on that. I appreciate your perspective on the matter, nonetheless, along with your (at least in my timezone) quick reply. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
    • Yes. I always like it when editors, esp. IP editors, are clear in their explanations... Drmies (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I had even preemptively added the soundtrack to my watchlist, but I had to run out and pick up veal parm dinners for the wife and me. Thanks for handling that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oooooh tasty. No, there was no slack, just some busyness. How childish racists are. I'm making mac and cheese tonight. Bon appetit! Drmies (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

No, I didn't put it in the wrong place. The Irvington request was put there while I was writing it, and, as usual, the warnings from the software recognize a race condition, and make any effort to correct it just worse. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process. The Proposed Decision phase of the discretionary sanctions review process has now opened. A five-day public review period for the proposed decision, before arbitrators cast votes on the proposed decision, is open through November 18. Any interested editors are invited to comment on the proposed decision talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I've sort of been following events surrounding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/El Cubano 153, since this editor has given me a bit of grief as well. You also blocked Cusofre - Android Editor as one of the socks. On the Spanish Wikipedia, that user is blocked as a sock of FanPepeMago, who is registered on this Wiki. Not sure if it's worth bringing to SPI, since it's closed and this account has no edits on EN. Also, not sure if it's worth requesting global locks on these accounts since both cross-wiki abuse and sockpuppetry are involved, and the accounts have been active on the Commons (with several files tagged for deletion). I brought it up at the related ANI discussion. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

• Well, I actually checked and there's nothing to see, but hey, why not; I'm sure they were right. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, if you have a moment, I could use some help with a bothersome situation involving another editor who keeps coming back to my user talk after being banned from it.

As you know, per WP:NOBAN, “repeatedly posting on a user's page after being asked not to, without good reason, may be seen as harassment or similar kind of disruptive behavior”.

At 23:30, 17 Jun 2022, User:NewsAndEventsGuy banned me from his user talk.[1]

I reciprocated at 23:34, 17 June 2022 telling that user not to post at my user talk.[2]

At 07:17, 21 July, 2022 he comes back.[3]

At 21:20, 7 Aug 2022 I told him again to “Stop posting at my talk page."[4]

At 21:34 on 15 November 2022 he comes back again.[5]

I would really like to be left alone by this user, especially at my user talk. Can you please help make that happen? Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• Eh, OK--but that message from 21 July was an apology--that's pretty friendly, and it might be an olive branch. And we're talking about two edits in half a year, which I suppose is a violation but not all that big in the scheme of things. Then again, NewsAndEventsGuy, I don't understand why you'd make this edit. But Anything, you actually pinged them in this very message--why? I can't help but think that the two of you should have lunch or coffee and talk things over. Sure, I can start enforcing stuff, but it would have to start with a warning and all that, and further edits, and I can do that, sure. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for looking into this Drmies. I do not like talking about other users behind their back, on principle, so I wlinked him because of that principle. Yes, I thought the note at 21 July might be some kind of apology, so I responded in kind and got dead silence. I never lifted the ban at my user talk, and I have had awful experience with this editor, who has dug through my editing history to find every possible clue about my personal life and then blabbed about it. Plus I think he has repeatedly used an IP address to criticize me. Based on his edits while logged in, I do not trust him, do not think he is reasonable, and would really really really like him to stay away from my user talk. Can you please help make it happen? Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
    • Hmm. OK. The whole "behind one's back" thing is not terribly convincing: if you're asking for someone to be banned from your talk page, then pinging them looks like hounding them to me; I think it's a cheap shot. Still, I'll ask NewsAndEventsGuy to refrain from posting on your talk page--NewsAndEventsGuy, just avoid it. But Anything, you may NOT accuse someone of harassing you via logged-out editing (ie, socking) without solid evidence, and if you have such evidence, you should start an SPI and not post accusations on someone's talk page. I'm serious: I'm a CheckUser, and that accusation is serious business. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
      • Thanks for asking them to refrain. I would have preferred not to wlink him, but do unto others and all that. Next time something like this happens, I won't feel obliged. I'll think about starting an SPI, I've never messed with that process, don't know much about it, and would prefer not to get into it, sorry if I said something improper here. (Incidentally, I don't recall if any IP "harassed" me, it was just harsh criticism as I recall, and I don't even know if there are Wikipedia rules against that.) Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Oops, six decades of cerebral deterioration makes these things hard to remember, sorry.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC) PS.... arguably, I didn't post to the "talk" page because I didn't "talk". All I did was format the archiving so there is an index and search box, because Anythingyouwant set up archiving without those things, making past talk page threads hard to find. There is version history, of course, but one would think an editor with almost two decades of experience would be familiar with archive indexes and search boxes. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Drmies,

Is that Notre-Dame de Sénanque in the page notice? Nice find!

I'd like to request the ability to edit through a VPN, per WP:IPECPROXY. There are some scholarly scholarly resources I can only access through a proxy, which is blocked. And while looking for good sources (mostly newspapers), I've also repeatedly bumped into GDPR-walls that force me to turn on my personal VPN with an American IP, but then I usually need to repeatedly disconnect from the VPN, copy the edits I'm working on, ctrl+R to fully reload, paste the edits (which don't get saved after a hard-reload) into the fresh page, and then submit; then reconnect to the VPN to find more sources, etc. It's a real pain to work around. Thanks. DFlhb (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks--I stole it from [User:Softlavender]]. Also: done. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you! DFlhb (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I know this LTA's habits somewhat well; all of the IPs they're using are likely proxies; you should hardblock them as such wizzito | say hello! 02:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 53, September – October 2022

• New collections:
  • Edward Elgar
  • E-Yearbook
  • Corriere della Serra
  • Wikilala
• Collections moved to Library Bundle:
  • Ancestry
• New feature: Outage notification
• Spotlight: Collections indexed in EDS

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Truetotheir promise. Could you..? Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Sure thing. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

They're currently active as User:2.99.92.180, if you could.

(They've also been at User:88.110.118.145, User:2.99.75.29 in the interim.) Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

...no need. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, I did manage to accidentally block Matt at first, between helping my wife put groceries away groceries away and making lunch, so there's that. I've blocked all the IPs for three months, so any recurrence is block evasion on top of harassment. Acroterion (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

What's for lunch? Thank you, Acroterion. Me, I was out at the curb market, picking up croissants and bread. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Empanadas from the parking lot market, probably the last of the year. Acroterion (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Steak pies from the local baker here, as the Scotch pies were still in the oven. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

And here I am about to pull a store-bought pizza out of the oven... though tomorrow is squash and sage orzo. Primefac (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm thinking Thai. Valereee (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

This is all very impressive. Steak pie, yes please! But squash and sage orzo sounds like something I can make. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Thought you, Dennis, and/or other ANI 2.0–watchers might appreciate: Wikipedia:Don't edit-war with vandals or sockpuppets. Haven't decided on a shortcut yet. Maybe WP:DONTEDTWARWITHVANDALSORSOCKPUPPETS. Or WP:3RRYESBUTALSONO. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Just checking if WP:DEVS (WP:DEWWVS?) is a redlink... but yes, absolutely, it kills me when someone requests OS and I find there are 30 revisions to hide simply because they were edit warring with the vandal. Primefac (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. Thank you. DONTROLLBACK. Drmies (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I see that you tagged Andrea De Carlo with COI some years ago. I agree that based on the edit history, that was the right call. If the edits you are concerned with are limited to the ones that appear to have been made by the subject of the article, having reviewed them, I propose that the tag is no longer needed, and have started a discussion on the talk page. I'd appreciate your input!

I notice, by the way, that you also amended the lede of the article to correct my overly literal translation of the original article. I appreciate that. I have no conflict of interest, except in so far as I have read and enjoyed a number of the subject's books. -- Shunpiker (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Hi--I removed the tag and replaced it with a BLP sources tag. If you enjoy his books, let's get to improving the article with secondary sources. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree that sources would be helpful, but no need to be unkind! Shunpiker (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
    • Huh? Drmies (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
      • I trust that you didn't mean to offend but "If you enjoy his books, let's get to improving the article with secondary sources" is a bit abrasive. If you hadn't included the "If you enjoy his books" part, I would give you a high-five and that would be that. Adding BLP sources is a good call. In any case, appreciate your efforts. -- Shunpiker (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
        • If you trust that, stick with it. The careful reader will note that "let's" indicates a plural, as in "I'd be happy to help with working on the article". Drmies (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I wish Wikimedia had shadow banning implemented... Thanks for the catch! Cheers Adakiko (talk) 02:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• Interesting thought. Me? I wish for accessible mental health care, and for children to develop healthy habits. Their edits, BTW, are so piss-poor they’re immediately obvious, and as I blocked I realized I’d seen that nonsense before. Thanks, and by all means ping me next time. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

With world leaders being treated voluntarily whether or not they volunteer? My therapist's bumper sticker: "Support mental health or I'll kill you". How many psychologists' PhD theses are based on Wikipedia editors/editing? Cheers Adakiko (talk) 05:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I was away for vacation in the U.S., pictured, after we had an Ukrainian choir visiting, my first subject celebrated 60, and we heard Bach's ultimate statement about life and death (3 concerts in 3 days) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

• Wow--I am jealous! Drmies (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  understand - happy Thanksgiving - Bach said it in music for peace --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I had just realized "wait, that image section is beyond silly" and headed to remove it before noticing you already did it. Thanks for doing the embarrassing work. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 03:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

• Well, hey, I ran into worse. Clearly someone enjoyed putting those photos there. The one with the tail was kinda cute but added nothing to the article. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Nice one. Don't forget to add entries to List of hotels in the United States..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, I have reviewed your nomination and there's a minor issue which needs to be resolved before it can go ahead. Plus, you need to provide a QPQ for this and the good news is that I have 'an extra QPQ' which you can use if you like – I owe you :). --Mhhossein ^talk 11:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

It's been a while, but I have done a thing. (Well, "done" is a stretch, but gotten a decent start anyway...) LadyofShalott 16:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

• Lady! I was thinking about you the other day, when I saw your name in some edits from 13 years ago--hey, that's a real thing! Thank you for writing that up--and nice to see you again here. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

  Interface administrator changes

  TheresNoTime

  TheresNoTime

  CheckUser changes

  TheresNoTime

  Oversight changes

  TheresNoTime

  Guideline and policy news

• Consensus has been found in an RfC to automatically place RfAs on hold after one week.
• The article creation at scale RfC has been closed.
• An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.

  Technical news

• A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

  Arbitration

• Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
• The proposed decision for the 2021-22 review of the discretionary sanctions system is open.
• The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has been closed.
• The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
• Amotion has modified the procedures for contacting an admin facing Level 2 desysop.

  Miscellaneous

• Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add /64 to the end of an IP in Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.

I've brought up Foorgood's conduct on this talkpage in AndyTheGrump's most recent daily appearance at ANI [6]. Acroterion (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

about [7] whose every edit has been reverted? Doug Weller talk 09:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• It's just complete incompetence, isn't it. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  Yes and I don’t have any hope that will change. Doug Weller talk 19:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  I read their edits as, almost certainly, trolling. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

BackatUser:2.99.81.66. (Would like to see how the protestations of good faith sit with this one.) Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• So pathetic. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm writing this, but your response to the unblock request by Guswen has some confusion. I utterly agree that he's been a waste of time, and the only reason I noticed your reply is because he's one of the irritants I decided to keep track of. His block for socking was only three weeks. I don't know the rationale for the limited block, I thought socking was a death penalty offense, but that's what Dreamy Jazz picked - probably just to get past the deletion review. What Guswen is running into is a range block you installed on 5 January 2022, here, for a long-term abuser. I suspect your targeted LTA is not Guswen, since he was successfully editing after that block had been imposed, which implies his IP address was not in that range back in July. I'd suspect his IP provider has changed, and he got caught in that range block. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 05:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not confused. My response had nothing to do with the rangeblock, which in all likelihood, as you say, has nothing to do with him. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Fair 'nuff. I certainly don't object! It just sounded to me like you thought his block for socking was still in place. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 23:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Sure thing. But after I saw their response, I went with no. For clarity's sake, this was about whether the editor was to be granted IPBE. Now I'm wondering if I shouldn't just block them per NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The nominator didn't make any notifications for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black children as alligator bait, so I'm doing the honors; you are one of the major editors of the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks, Yngvadottir: that's crazy. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for blocking Deyodeyabanow, who is a self-confessed sock of Evlekis, but he needs to have his TPA revoked (as can be seen on his talk page), the other three I mentioned on ZZuuzz's talkpage (see this) are also Evlekis, and need the usual treatment (i.e. indeff plus removed TPA and email). Have a good day! - Tom   | Thomas.W ^talk 16:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oh, right, Evlekis--I keep forgetting which one of those losers is who. I blocked a few more, but I'll have a look. God how sad. Take care Thomas.W. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process.

The Arbitration Committee has concluded the 2021-22 review of the contentious topics system (formerly known as discretionary sanctions), and its final decision is viewable at the revision process page. As part of the review process, the Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

This motion initiates a one-month implementation period for the updates to the contentious topics system. The Arbitration Committee will announce when the initial implementation of the Committee's decision has concluded and the amendments made by the drafting arbitrators in accordance with the Committee's decision take effect. Any editors interested in the implementation process are invited to assist at the implementation talk page, and editors interested in updates may subscribe to the update list.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure adopted

I was just apparently reported for "edit warring" related to that vandalism cleanup. Please see my TP if you want to chime in. TY. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 01:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll have a look. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks like they are calling me a "liberal cuck" on their TP. User talk:174.90.223.139. Remove talk page commenting access deemed necessary? — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 01:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, all the admins came out for that asshole, so it's all taken care of! Drmies (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi and happy holidays! I just created the biography on Henriette Willemina Crommelin and thought it might interest you. Perhaps you have access to some additional sources? No worries if you're busy with other things. -- Rosiestep (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks Rosiestep--same to you. I'll get on it: thanks! Drmies (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I thought the vandalism was over already! Guess not., sadly. Thankfully, it's been suppressed, ECP applied. Sarrail (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

• Someone clearly needs to get laid, it seems. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

2603:6011:7501:7862:78A5:31BF:9575:397D

I had a reference for my edits Guardians delay Progressive Field renovations until after 2023 | wkyc.com, but I could not get the reference to format correctly. Any help that you could provide in this matter would be greatly appreciated!!!!!!!!!! Saved by God's grace (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi there. You recently protected the article Deanna Lynn Wulff because of BLP violations by a string of IP editors. BD2412 has now also protected the AfD page because of IP vote-stacking.

Another IP has now left comments on the article talk page (after deleting a comment from a bot about a file deletion). I wasn't sure if talk pages are by default excluded from page protection, but that looks to be the case. I wasn't sure if reverting the comments was the right thing to do, so instead I moved the IP comments after restoring the deleted text from the bot.

Given that all these IPs geolocate to the San Francisco area, I think it's reasonable to assume that they have been WP:CANVASSed to edit this article and the AfD debate. Is there anything else actionable beyond what's already been done? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 03:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I am unconcerned with edits to the article, or its talk page, or the AfD talk page, as they will not disrupt the discussion itself. BD2412 T 04:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Drm310, there's a few things in play here. One, BD2412 is, I think, pointing at the fact that any decent admin should be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. On the other hand, with the lack of copy-editing skills and formatting knowledge, those comments are all very unattractive and really distracting. Moreover, many of them do nothing but make swipes at other editors, including personal attacks (again with a lack of knowledge of how things work here underneath all that), and that sours the atmosphere, and does not contribute to a comprehensive discussion of the merits of the subject. Like, we don't need to be told a dozen times that "important news stories have been removed" when that is not true, or that editors are being recruited to blah blah.

I'm not telling you anything you don't know, of course, but I'm laying out a few reasons for why one could do thisorthis. I'm a big fan of keeping talk- and discussion pages clean of such accusations and useless commentary, so that is a course of action you can take too. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

What? Drmies not a big fan of the TRUTH!! Meh. Think K-state has a chance against The Crimson Tide in the Sugar Bowl? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

• What? What? There's football outside of the playoffs?? :-| (The biggest question is, is Saban losing it? Losing two games in one season by a few inches/points--that's unheard off.) To top it off we stupidly lost to Argentina and I got COVID. Oh, next time I teach World Lit I'm adding Dede Korkut, for a change of pace. I need to get a year-long scholarship or something, some grant from the WMF maybe, to travel around in Central Asia. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Sorry to hear you got COVID. You be careful with that stuff, it effects different people differently.
  • I have heard Merv and Samarkand are amazing. They are on my list IF I ever get to retire and go traveling.
  • If you think Saban losing two games is criminal, be glad you are not a Nebraska Cornhuskers fan! :/ --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I was wondering if you could revoke the TPA of the IP in question. Thank you. SunilNevlaFan✨ 21:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if you might be able to add to here? Seems like frustrations are boiling over a bit with the current situation. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

• I'm actually reading over that talk page right now. There are some serious misunderstandings and I am not sure I am cool enough to answer that diplomatically. Let's face it: the subject and/or her agents/representatives shouldn't be editing that article, they shouldn't complain in bold and all caps and boss people around, and she shouldn't complain about how changes are or are not made here if she can't even be bothered to learn the rules. So I think I'm not going to do that right now, haha. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
  • No worries - it's now been taken to COIN (not by me). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
    • That's likely to make it worse. This is another one of these cases where someone needs to smooth things over diplomatically, appeasing all the sides while maintaining the integrity of the article. The longer I'm here, the more difficult I find it to take that role. At some point you get tired of it. Thanks, and BTW I really appreciate all the work you've done here on our beautiful project. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
      • Cheers :) Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I've been noticing lately that User:JosephWC keeps adding unsourced content to Wikipedia pages such as Johnny Blaze and Killer Croc, and refusing to provide an explanation nor sourcing for any of them. Every time someone undoes their edits for proper reasons, such as their lack of sources, they counter undo as soon as possible with no explanation at all. Plus, I left a message on their talk page asking them to provide context for their edits and their disagreements with me, and they removed it outright and still refused to explain themselves. I could really use some help in resolving this situation before it escalates too far. Blazewing16 (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

• This is about a Marvel character? Then all bets are off--"verification" doesn't apply to comic characters, certainly not verification from secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
  • then help me get those sources. I'm not trimming down like you want me too, then help me out instead of hindering me every damn chance. JosephWC (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Don't be rude, and please follow proper rules for talk page threading. You seriously want ME to find sources for the trivial stuff you want to add to article about cartoon characters? And I am not hindering you in those articles: I am merely reminding you of how this website works. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Of course they're vandalizing on their talk page after you blocked them. Could you remove their TPA, please? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 01:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

• Hmm I don't know if I'd really call that vandalism, but sure. They're not here to edit anyway. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Much respect for you but think you went off half cocked, Mackensen seems to have misled you into thinking that the bibliography was all that was edited. This isn't about adding a bibliography, that would be ridiculous. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

• Link to discussion/topic please. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Another user is persistently complaining about me. On a completely unrelated note how do you make the image of the lavender fields and abbey appear at the top while a comment is being written? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
    • You need to make something like User talk:Drmies/Editnotice. The manual is here, Wikipedia:Editnotice.
      I looked at all the edits by Rachel Helps in that userfied version and their most substantial edit is this, which is run of the mill biographical editing. You could call it resume-style, or based on weak sources, and I wouldn't disagree, but it's not much to hang a clear COI on and charge the user with non-neutral COI editing. And while you have said a few times that they have a "disqualifying COI", that doesn't seem to have gained any traction. I haven't seen anyone agreeing with you in any of the discussions where you brought it up (and this was just one short comment, half-cocked and shot from the hip, perhaps).
      In addition, I really don't like how you responded to Nihonjoe's comments, and "stop harassing me" was just wrong. You're also not correct in your comments about her COI as supposedly indicated by the relationship between the church and BYU--I didn't look at the two YouTube links (atUser_talk:Rachel_Helps_(BYU)#COI_RE_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints_in_England) cause I don't look at YouTube links, but this can never prove that anyone who works at BYU has a disqualifying COI for all the work they do here that relates to BYU. I appreciate your work here, but you are taking this too far. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
      • The issue isn't going any further even if I wanted it to, Rachel Helps (BYU) went on a multiweek wikibreak[8] shorty after opening that ANI thread. Why don't you look at YouTube links? The YouTube links are to videos from 60 Minutes Australia and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, both WP:RS. Would it surprise you to know that Nihonjoe and Rachel Helps (BYU) have met up IRL... at BYU? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The article Aaron Santcroos has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks SchroCat--and the same to you! Drmies (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Drmies. I saw that you revoked the talk page access of 69.127.80.35 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Was this a mistake? The IP's recent edits were to remove trolling by another IP [90.254.33.32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), blocked by Ad Orientem] from their talk page. If this were intentional, it's concerning: we've effectively allowed a user's taunts to get another's talk page access removed ... Sdrqaz (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• Ahem--recent edits? Where they go "I wish you died in that Colorado Springs shooting. Die, die, die, jerk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I hope you get ran over by a car!!!!! The entire world will be fine without you."? And the other IP is blocked for a long time, and won't be trolling anytime soon. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
  • You revoked their talk page access for three years based on comments that are 20 days old? Sdrqaz (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
    • They're also blocked for three years. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
      • I can't shake the feeling that we're talking past each other here, instead of with each other. My point is that the revocation of talk page access was unnecessarily punitive and serves zero preventative effect, especially when the diff you've cited was followed by a withdrawal and apology fewer than two hours later. Please undo your action. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
        • I really don't put that much stock in that apology, and they continued to insult that other user until two days ago in edit summaries. A poorly formatted unblock request was corrected and deniedby331dot, and that was the last useful thing that came from that IP. That the other user is a certified troll doesn't change the fact. If the block is valid--and they've been blocked essentially since May 2021, by Ohnoitsjamie, PhilKnight, Widr, EvergreenFir, and Ad Orientem, and if the last block was confirmed by 331dot, and if they have nothing positive to offer in terms of talk page contributions or reasonable unblock requests, then why should they have talk page access? Drmies (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
          • Just looked at their last half dozen or so edits and edit summaries, all on their talk page. This is not somebody who has any need for TPA. (Add... looking back a bit farther, this is pretty clearly a case of NOTHERE.). -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
            • Agree, no need for them to have TPA. 331dot (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
              • Agreed. Reminds me of Gabucho. They can use the UTRS EvergreenFir (talk) 03:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• I celebrate ALL of them, Donner60--thank you, and same to you. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello Drmies: From high in the Canadian Arctic I hope you enjoy the holiday season, Quviasukvik, the WinterorSummer solstice, Christmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah or even the Saturnalia, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Adapted from {{Season's Greetings}}

CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello Drmies: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, RV (talk) 07:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

user Raj172027 is removing and reverting many contents of different articles which has citations to it and have relavent information about article in it. Please take serious actions against the user as i had already tried to solve the matter over user talk but still he removing content from articles using his own free will. Piyush Negi 07:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

He is not giving a proper reason for removing contents of the article and doing so just for his personal grudge against me. Piyush Negi 07:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I had joined wikipedia around 4 years ago and i loved to edit articles here and never violates any terms and policies of wikipedia, but since user Raj172027 joined wikipedia 2 months ago he tried to remove my edits without a citation and a valid reason. Piyush Negi 08:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Drmies! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:03, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:03, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Thank you also for the swiftest DYK review in a decade. The slowest is Talia Or, and where I reached the end of my expression in English is Concentricities, - perhaps you could cast an eye on that one? Let's try my English here: when a subject is John Miller, we need something to be added to make it unusual, but when the subject is already unusual, isn't that enough to qualify for the new rule that replaced "interesting to a broad audience"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• I don't see that article on the nominations page, Gerda. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
  • We now have two pages, one approved, one waiting. Only: the latest fashion is for a prep-builder to disapprove but not put it back to the other. However: the safe way to find a nom is the article talk page where they now get transcluded. You can edit them from there the same as from the noms page: click on review or comment. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Gerda, you could have just linked; that doesn't make it canvassing any more than it already is. Are you OK with ALTURVE? Oh--this is dead, so "daughter of a synagogue teacher" is not verified. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
      • I could have just linked but then you would not know next time. I am sorry that I wasn't clear: by "last one" i meant Template:Did you know nominations/Concentricities, where I don't need an approval, just understand the misunderstanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
      • Today was a day rich in music, with two new pictures, and also rich in WP:QAI contributions on the Main page: the TFA, 2 DYK and 2 RD with members as principal editors. The church pictured there (not by me, nice snow dust and tall evergreen) comes with memories, detailed on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
      • Wolf Erlbruch - I saw your name in the history, - we should be able to make the article fit for the RD section. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
      • I did what I could and nominated, - please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
        • Oh, now I understand what "RD" means. He's dead--that's so sad. Those books are absolutely fantastic. I loved reading them to the kids, especially 's Nachts. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
          • I think I'd have loved to be one of your kids and listen. - RD has become my program, DYK? After DYK became so hard, - thank you for your help there! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
          • The nomination of Erlbruch needs supports to make him appear. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
          • Nevermind, he's now "on". Latest pics, with an opera discovery and some snow. Today my talk has a DYK that was planned for 22 November, and now a choir pic of "our" concert last Sunday, likely to become next year's lead image. Enjoy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
          • Enjoy the season, dreaming of peace! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
          • Today, pictured, the soprano of our choral concert of the year. More in the context: User talk:Gerda Arendt#DYK for Talia Or, in case of interest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
          • Forgot to thank you for the approval, - or for how long would she have lingered? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Cielquiparle, I am not happy with that new hook, and I was completely unaware of it--pinging me would have been the decent thing to do. It really took the sting out of the horrible event. Please do not do that to me again. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry about that! I just assumed you were following the DYK review as it progressed, as it languished for so long. Yes, will definitely ping in future. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for this article, and your help with the one mentioned below (took it off my watchlist after you cleaned it up). An important lynching, somewhat similar, was the murder of Alec Coudotte, Philip Ireland, and Paul Holy Track (perhaps just 13 years old!), in the Dakotas. You may find it worth your time - I have intended to write it for months now but have felt it too heavy. Vyzralek, Frank E. (1990), "Murder in masquerade: A commentary on lynching and mob violence in North Dakota's past, 1882-1931", North Dakota History, 57 (1) – a good overview, though I find its tone at the end unsettling; I received it through ILL. No pressure, just a thought with appreciation for your work here and elsewhere. Urve (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks Urve--yes, I believe these are important articles to write. There's a few others who have expanded our coverage on this topic. I started looking for the article; feel free to email it to me, if you have it digitally. Anyway, I ran into another case, and wrote up Lynching of Charles Bannon real quick, basically paraphrasing one source. Obviously it needs some work. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks--but I'm not seeing the worst of it, no doubt... Drmies (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Back in May 2021 you removed talk page access, rightly in my opinion, from a blocked editor called Tympanus. I had myself previously declined an unblock request from the editor. They have now posted an unblock request at UTRS. I am not totally impressed by the request, but it does not repeat the kinds of problematic things which led to your removal of talk page access, and while I am not about to accept the current request, I am inclined to restore talk page access, and give them a chance to post an unblock request there. Any thoughts? JBW (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

This is UTRS appeal #67374

What say ye? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

me too -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I can’t look at this in detail until tomorrow—but restoring TPA for an unblock request is fine with me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

• Ceoil, I appreciate that very much--thank you. Same to you! Drmies (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Drmies,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 22:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

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

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 22:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Drmies,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 03:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Abishe (talk) 03:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you so much, Bishonen, and the same to you! Drmies (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you Ealdgyth, and the same to you. I'm waiting on an article to appear in Studies in Medievalism, and I'm writing up an actual biography on Clifford Lanier--but I'm more in medievalism than in medieval studies these days, haha. Take care, and my love to you and yours. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey Drmies, season's greetings! When you have a moment, could you let us have your thoughts at Talk:Cyber Anakin#Cyber Anakin's involvement in identifying the man harassing female chess players? Hope all is well with you and yours! (And a certain disgraced dragon sends you good wishes.) Best, Andreas JN466 21:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• Ha, I saw you pinged me from a related page, with the usual mixture of charm and ... well you know. I looked at it real quick, but mostly I was happy to see you were still around and active. We're all getting old here. I appreciate the good wishes; please return them and tell her I hope she is well. I'll be happy to have a look, being mindful of your earlier commentary; you should know I take your comments seriously. Take care, Drmies (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed, old(er) age is creeping up on us, as the saying goes. Let's hope it is accompanied by increasing wisdom.

  Thank you and Happy New Year from both of us! Andreas JN466 21:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I had erred on the side of caution that the address might have changed hands since the last block. :)

Either way, am reminded to stop by to say Happy New Year and all the best to you for 2023. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• Same to you, my friend and colleague. No sweat and no apology necessary: we are unfortunately too familiar with that editor, though I keep forgetting their name. It's something manly, I think. Yes, all the best--and thanks for still being here, still keeping the place clean. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Drmies,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. See this for background context.
Mhhossein ^talk 07:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Mhhossein ^talk 07:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev Doug Weller talk 10:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• Not unexpected, huh, given the childishness and assholishness. Take care Doug! Drmies (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, I just wanted to apologize if my reverts at Historical negationism recently were unhelpful. I was patrolling recent changes for possible vandalism and sometimes I move a little too quickly while reverting, without taking the edit into context. I'm trying to do better in the future. Thank you for your hard work on Wikipedia and happy New Year. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• User:Herbfur, no problem at all; I appreciate the note. You'll have seen that the editor wasn't very cooperative to begin with... Thanks, and happy new year to you too! Drmies (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, would you mind beefing up the rangeblock referenced here [10]. They are now extending their vandalism to other pages outside the ones listed in their block. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 15:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• There's something you can do for me here. Give me the clearly disruptive IPs so I can maybe make a narrower rangeblock--that stuff on Talk:Amber Heard, for instance, is chatter but not necessarily vandalism. If there is a narrower range, clearly full of vandal edits, I can make it a project-wide block. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Ok, the one I noticed specifically made these edits [11], [12]. There's also this [13]. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 15:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Also, the recent history of Diana Canova. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 15:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
    • OK--leaving out the second one (which strikes me as a different person) gives me a /66 range. The associated /64 range has a history of long blocks, and I followed that lead. Let's hope it cuts down a bit on the disruption. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

  Interface administrator changes

  Nihiltres

  Moneytrees

 

• Ivanvector

SilkTork

  Oversighter changes

 

• GeneralNotability

Moneytrees

 

• Guerillero

SilkTork

  Guideline and policy news

• Speedy deletion criterion A5 (transwikied articles) has been repealed following an unopposed proposal.

  Arbitration

• Following the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, CaptainEek, GeneralNotability, Guerillero, L235, Moneytrees, Primefac, SilkTork.
• The 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review has concluded with many changes to the discretionary sanctions procedure including a change of the name to "contentious topics". The changes are being implemented over the coming month.
• The arbitration case Stephen has been closed.

  Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
• Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.

I'm sorry. I missed this at first. I apologize if I troubled you.

You don't think that putting a date label helps with understanding what's in Talk? I did it to help understand how recent those posts were. The content is still clear. Too bad there isn't an automatic date function along with the title.

I'm sure you also noticed I grouped the 3 Vertabedian sections together.

I've a strong interest in organizing info, hence the To-Dos. I think discussing organization and article needs is a very good idea. The article has come a long way in the last few months, and I think it's looking pretty good (but there always seem to be more needs!).

I'm not trying to steamroll anybody; I just want to make things better. Robert92107 (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

No insult intended, and none taken. (right?) Nice to meet you.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hakeem_Jeffries&diff=1131952280&oldid=1131952142 |

Your edit comment there says -- (in part) -- "Rv commentary". I did not think that anyone would consider explaining the meaning of a phrase to be an instance of op-ed. (Did you read my edit comment?) By the way, that phrase seems to have a different meaning in the US Congress ["House of Representatives"] than ... the meaning at ... item number "[4]" under Agenda (meeting)#Standard Order of Business.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bari_Weiss&oldid=prev&diff=1131952437

Your edit comment there says -- (in part) -- "this is unnecessary". I did not insist that it was necessary ... at least, not in the sense that, if something had remained ambiguous, and if it were therefore (even 'slightly') possible for someone to misunderstand it, that the world the wiki would explode. I just thought that, it would be better, if a small change were added, to remove the ambiguity.

Thanks for listening (reading this). Mike Schwartz (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• Hi. You said, in the complicated footnote for Jeffries, "there was still no Wikipedia article"--that's meta. It's editorial commentary and can in no way be verified by a secondary citation. It's material for the talk page. For Weiss, I disagree with your edit summary, which is unnecessarily complex--if the edit was necessary, it would have been easy to explain. But the comma is incorrect, and since the heading for the section already includes "2021", adding it is redundant (less is more), even though an earlier sentence has an (editorial!) other year in it. I hope I addressed all your queries. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Please sir believe that🙏🙏 Khelna Bari page not only me but many other editors have improved the page. Many think that I am a member of Zee Bangla. But that is not the case sir, I have edited many pages apart from Zee Bangla. I create pages for series that I know well about. But believe me sir I have never added wrong information to any page and never let anyone do it. No one can accept that I have moved to the main page by improving the continuous underdeveloped pages of many editors. So sir, one request to you🙏🙏 is to protect the Khelna Bari page. Because I am saying with revise that the reliable source that is added to this page has the depth of the source clearly passes WP:NTV with sufficient WP:GNG. Nilpriyo (talk) 1:46, 7 January 2023.

• Can we stop with the "sir"? Drmies (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I ask your advice about editor Nilpriyo. Nilpriyo has a remarkable interest in Zee Bangla and their programs. To such an extend that it makes my uneasy. Off course, it is possible that Nilpriyo is just a superfan but other options are also possible. Especially this edit shows off red flags and set my alarm bells off. And this edit is not helping either as removed the prod from several of its own articles. Is it a good idea to go to the COI-notice board, based on his edit history?The Banner talk 17:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• I see what you mean. Funny, I ran into a Zee article this morning. Well, if you can give me a few diffs that clearly suggest promotional editing (and there's also a significant amount of incompetence here), and an indication of to which extent they are working on Zee-related articles and not on others, then I will consider a block from article space if they don't address the COI matter in a satisfactory way. You can always take it to the COI board as well, of course. Thanks Banner, Drmies (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  • This edit just baffles me. If I read it correct, he just said: "go away, your are inconvenient". The Banner talk 19:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Drmies, thank you for the advice here. I share The Banner's concern about this editor.

To show that they are an SPA account for Zee Bangla, the last 10 articles that they have edited are all Zee Bangla shows: Ei Poth Jodi Na Sesh Hoy, Gouri Elo, Tomar Khola Hawa, Ranga Bou, Bodhisattwor Bodhbuddhi, Khelna Bari, Tomar Khola Hawa, List of programmes broadcast by Zee Bangla, Mon Dite Chai and Tara (TV series). The first five articles they edited (when the account was created in November 2020) are: Zee Bangla, Agnipariksha (2009 TV series), , Karunamoyee Rani Rashmoni, Krishnakoli, Bagh Bondi Khela (TV series).

My concern is that their behaviour seems quite disruptive:

• removing COI request without responding (and possibly an UPE allegation in the Edit Summary)
• undermining an AFD by moving its discussion page
• multiple Keep votes
• multiple Keep votes
• possible canvassing (Titodutta had commented at the AFD but not voted).

Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• • Thank you. I'm wondering if maybe this shouldn't go to COIN, but then again, disruption is one thing, proof of involved non-neutral editing is another thing. Like I mentioned above, there's a measure of incompetence here as well. Drmies (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
    • This is a type of edits often made by user:Nilpriyo, despite being told many times that upcoming programs are a violation of WP:NOTVGUIDE and should therefore not be added. To my opinion, that is spamming. The Banner talk 16:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

just my mother's birthday - she introduced me to music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm on vacation, - click on songs! I tell my own stories now, instead of relying on DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Trust the next lot of the same number are as much fun JarrahTree 13:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• Haha, thanks. We'll see! Drmies (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the clue, if proceeded it's like dipping into regions of the terrorised psyche of a krill about to be ingested by a whale... if it happens, there are also thelate douglas adams less traumatised improbably airborne sofa and whale conciousnesses - to unwrap all that is what might happen, or not, again douglas adams and heisenberg come to mind. JarrahTree 01:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
    • That's not a rhetorical strategy I'd advise there. Go for the facts and provide a few diffs. Don't try to be exhaustive. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
      • Hardly a compromise - its there, but the events in the nether regions keep unfolding like a surfer's nightmare sequence of dumping waves. It could have been so much shorter. But in the ANI the items either side in the sequence are partying, the specific item is like a morgue in edinburgh with no gallows humour heard... So it goes. (Ahh where's vonnegut when we need him). JarrahTree 01:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
        • I think it's more whistling in the graveyard, from monsieur waits -

[14] I could be very wrong, but I see some element of WP:OWN and a few other possession of the truth issues, nothing but the facts ma'am, it's probably not worth immediate action, but a FYI is tendered here. JarrahTree 12:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

RE: [15]. Rather than just reverting, I figured better to discuss directly. Is the phrase "served as" a euphemism? Blindly estimating, but at least 95% of our articles on politicians use this term, so I think the consensus-in-practice is in favor of it. Curbon7 (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• Hey, thanks for the note. Yes, I believe that is a euphemism. That we use it in politicians' articles when we're talking about paid positions with benefits is euphemistic. A politician's job is in important ways no different than other jobs, other than the fact of being elected. I am not going around crusading against its use, but I am changing it when I happen to come across it--especially, I'll add, for rich and famous people and their board memberships and what not. As for practice, it seems to me that much of that is just following some conventions. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi, Dr M, Curbon7! Have to agree with the good doctor here – I too remove just about any instance of "served as" that I see, replacing it with "was" in almost every case. Some people actually do "serve" – waiters, barmen, tennis players for sure, military personnel by convention (people in "the services"); for others it's just so much empty WP:PUFFERY. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarif   Curbon7 (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Ooh, now I want to edit the intro to Björn Borg to say "He served as ATP Player of the Year from 1976 to 1980" :-) (Seriously, though, thanks for this – I hadn't thought about "served as" from the perspective of actually being a servant, and have probably used it more than once to create some variety in the text.) --bonadea contributions talk 18:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Didn't Becker serve also...for tax evasion? Drmies (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's contentious topics procedure revision process.

In December, the Arbitration Committee adopted the contentious topics procedure, which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period.

• For a detailed summary of the changes from the discretionary sanctions system, see WP:DSVSCT.
• A brief guide for administrators may be found at Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Administrator instructions.
• Updated templates may be found at Template:Contentious topics.
• Suggestions and concerns may be directed to the arbitration clerk team at WT:AC/C.

The drafting arbitrators warmly thank all those who have worked to implement the new procedure during this implementation period and beyond. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure now in effect

BorgQueen (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, the memories... The Banner talk 12:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Same here, User:The Banner! Listen, while you're here, I need help. I've changed back to the "old look" half a dozen times now, and every time, after a few pages, it switches to this new format, which I hate. Can you help? Drmies (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

OK maybe 8 is the magic number. Fingers crossed. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I just switched it back, as it is indeed ugly. If it sticks, time will tell. The Banner talk 17:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

So far, my Windows/Firefox-setup agrees with the revert. The Banner talk 18:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Check out the geolocation of the IP in the CU log for Tailsultimatefan3891, along with their contribution history. Or the overlap at Requests for decrease in protection here. The more I dig, the duckier it gets.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC) ...and they all edit Wikivoyage. Who the hell edits Wikivoyage?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I do! -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah but you know what you're doing. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll wager I can find a dozen editors who will swear otherwise, under oath and in a court of law. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Fools, the lot of them!-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Who the hell edits Wikivoyage? Drmies (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Who the hell has "Gldgenga471834gldben" for a username? Drmies (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there a single productive editor with a username that bizarre? Cullen328 (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

A username made by banging one's head on the keyboard is always a red flag. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

But that craziness: those users who are just totally obsessed with our coding and procedures and whatnot, those cats who have pages and subpages and subsubpages, they're the craziest. Slightly less crazy are the ones that compulsively edit and create categories, there's a couple of those. I think those two groups are even less likely stop than the racist/sexist trolls. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Ugh.

LilianaUwU ( ) 10:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• Ha, thank you too. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I wanted to ask you to take a look at the recent history of Isaac Asante and Muhamed Tijani. I am having an issue with an editor called Soares1967 who has continually reverted my edits of their very poorly written (often grammatically incorrect at very basic levels—improper spacing, sentence fragments, etc.) edits. I have repeatedly left edit summaries explaining my edits, and I have also left two comments on their Talk page, along with two other editors saying similar things. The user has never responded to any of the comments, and they continue to make the same incorrect edits mentioned in the Talk page comments and revert corrections thereto. I don't want to get into an edit war with this user, but they never leave edit summaries and more often than not leave articles much worse than how they found them, occasionally making them outright senseless in their wake. I feel like I have run out of options beyond seeking the advice of an admin. I appreciate any help you can give me. Anwegmann (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• I can see how this is problematic, yes. I warned them. Let's see how it goes. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate it. We'll see what happens. Anwegmann (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

You might be interested in Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Prohibition on the locking of user talk pages. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 54, November – December 2022

• New collections:
  • British Newspaper Archive
  • Findmypast
  • University of Michigan Press
  • ACLS
  • Duke University Press
• 1Lib1Ref 2023
• Spotlight: EDS Refine Results

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I am going to revert your recent edit on this article, mainly because the redirect is not accurate and 28 years out of date but I feel the redirecting to Ferrari 488 would still not be a useful redirect either. I will not edit war if you feel the need to. --Falcadore (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

• Well, why don't you redirect it to a better place? The subject is simply not notable and is really a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. It should be on Wikia. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Drmies,

I saw that you once deleted this draft article as the creation of a sockpuppet so I'm hoping you can check this latest version to see if it is also the product of a block-evading editor. I see I once gave it protection but the page lost it when it was created and deleted subsequent to the protection being imposed. Thanks, in advance, for your help. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• "Maddie"--that sounds familiar. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
• Yeah, I can't prove socking, but there's all kinds of good reason to block this user, delete the article, and SALT it. I've seen the name "Maddie" in some older LTA stuff, childish stuff, but I don't know if this is related. Thanks Liz, Drmies (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at what's unfolding there... seems like folks aren't seeing what you're seeing, and we may end up with a situation where the correct policy-based option is the exact opposite of the physical "consensus". I have no idea what we're supposed to do in such an instance. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Hmm well, in the end, you just let it go. It's like spam calls: you know they're wrong and there's nothing you can do about it. At least two of the participants actually looked for shit instead of just saying OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or CLEARLYMEETSGNG. I appreciate you putting it up for deletion. But I have to ask you to skip the "administrator" bit--that I'm an admin doesn't make me any more right! Thanks, and take care, Drmies (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi there. Hope the new year has been treating you well. Not sure if you recall much about this user's block log. They started this recent thread Talk:2023_Half_Moon_Bay_shootings#Trying_to_hide_the_simple_truth_that_the_killer's_connection_with_China_is_a_dishonest_joke. Is this POV pushing worthy of an on the spot indef, given their history, or just let it play out? I've got no prior history with them. —Bagumba (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Hmm I don't see that's really cause for a block, though their section heading was silly and I modified it. Let it play out, I say. User:WWGB, I don't really need/want to know all the ins and outs, but I don't get it: the guy was Taiwanese? But Taiwanese don't automatically "hate everything about China" and want to kill Chinese Americans, right? Drmies (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oh you mean the editor is Taiwanese--that makes a bit more sense but still, that generalization is ... well, too much. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I was going to say AGF to User:WWGB, but I did see complaints of POV pushing re: China in some talk (maybe even noticeboard) discussions. And I saw some comment by you to the effect of an indef next time. But if they weren't on a super short leash, no problem for me. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Looking at the talk page again, and at what Yamla and 331dot said when they refused to unblock, I think it's safe to surmise that the leash is fairly short, but I don't think these comments, even though they were leading/disruptive, cross the line yet. It is conceivable that this will happen if the discussion continues, but perhaps they've learned to exercise some self-control in these last two years... Drmies (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the ping. I would concur that the line hasn't been crossed yet. 331dot (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Please round the coordinates obtained from Google, as I have done for the Tarn Wadling article. Google has taken to providing 16 digit coordinates in what is believed to be a copyright trap scheme. That level of precision is in the 1/100th of a micrometre range. Abductive (reasoning) 01:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Given that it was a lake, and now is no longer a lake, the lake could be said to be only an angstrom across... Primefac (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Drmies. Just wanted to ask a general question as you are an admin and may be able to answer. If I were to falsely claim that I was previously an administrator and mediator on Wikipedia, am I liable to face any penalties? What can be done about this situation? starship.paint (exalt) 16:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

• Hmm good question. I don't think I would block for just that claim alone, but usually such a claim leads to further investigation and they invariably end up with a block because of other stuff in their history. To put it another way, it's a symptom. One should certainly be warned for it; it violates community trust. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed; I see no penalties purely for saying "I'm an admin". Being disruptive while saying that is more likely to lead to sanctions, but any time I've seen a user with an admin userbox or topicon (and they weren't) it was simply removed and (most of the time) that was that. Primefac (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

  Thank you Drmies and Primefac. After reading both your comments, I would agree that blocks are not needed if there is no extra disruption. I would like to bring to your attention to an editor claiming [16] to be a former admin and former mediator “until a few years ago”. Drmies, you have met the editor before, telling the editor about the need to use reliable secondary sources [17] and to sign their posts. [18] I would consider that peculiar that a former admin would need such reminders. starship.paint (exalt) 00:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  The user was never an administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for handling that Bbb23. starship.paint (exalt) 01:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Drmies, I wanted to ask for clarification on the page Addiction Rare in Patients Treated with Narcotics, which I created years ago and which you just semi-protected due to persistent sockpuppetry. I just got a message on my talk page from someone, presumably the sockpuppeteer in question, complaining about how constructive edits to the page were being wrongly reverted. I wanted to get some idea of what kind of disruptive/unhelpful edits the sockpuppets have been engaging in on the article. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• IntoThinAir, I am not all that knowledgeable on the topic, but I saw the recent edits and the history. Look at those IPs, and check their geolocations: 79.53.216.191 and 84.223.33.219 both edited your article, and Woozle effect, so these are very likely the same person--and their geolocations are so far removed that there's likely something going on there. So that's what guided me, and the edit summary by User:DanielRigal, who's been here longer than me and is almost as old as me; if they say the socks are back after protection ran out, the first thing I'll consider is to restore that protection. Now, I did not really look at the content of their edits--I'm just the admin. Does that help? Drmies (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
• IntoThinAir, you should look at this revert by an administrator. That must betray their interest--but that's something you'll know better than me. This is all related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Belteshazzar, and Belteshazzar looks like a whiner to me who is trying to deny their culpability--and so it is that we get all these IP edits in "your" article and possibly others, IPs that no doubt are proxies. Hope that helps. (Also, that is a really a nice little article--thank you so much for writing it up.) Drmies (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 23:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I'm following up on an ANI post of mine from October in which you blocked an IP user that is making false death claims. They seem to be active after the block on 2804:D45:9600:0:0:0:0:0/40 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and last edited 2 days ago. Would appreciate another block. wizzito | say hello! 23:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• Hmm you're not an UGA fan, are you? ;) Drmies (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
• So they do fake deaths and weird updates to maintenance templates? Oh, and time zones--what a weird fetish. God I hate that kind of vandalism. It's so childish. But then I guess every kind is. I assume you don't suspect the editor from the same range who's editing Draft:List of American films of 2025. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I see their edits to that page, yes. Not into sports, sorry. wizzito | say hello! 23:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
    • It's not them. The film person is someone else. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

. . . is undoubtedly correct based on the present article, but I have removed it and notified two projects to see if they can access a couple of sources which exceed my skills.[19] If no one comes forward in a reasonable time (one month?) I will have no objection to its deletion. Best wishes, Kablammo (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Kablammo, I want to work on this project and make a big fat website full of great articles on notable topics. If you can help make that happen, more power to you. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I do like goal-oriented optimists. Kablammo (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
    • I appreciate that. Hey, I sell Girl Scout cookies too. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
      • A case of Thin Mints, please. Can you deliver by Valentine's Day? Kablammo (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
        • So that's twelve boxes? ;) I deliver in and around Montgomery, Alabama. Kelapstick can tell you how expensive shipping can be--to Canada anyway. If you're serious I'll be happy to look into it, of course, but I'm sure there's a local chapter too, and maybe this will help you find them. I read something about a "non-local" way, but I can't remember the exact details--whatever they raised went to a good cause, and I think it was GS-approved. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
          • Thank you for the link! Normally I buy them from an impossibly cute neighborhood girl, but they've grown up and moved on. I will just have to go to a store I found in that link. (I hope my S.O. isn't watching this.) Kablammo (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
            • I've had to reverse-engineer most of them... our Scouts don't sell cookies... Primefac (talk) 09:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
              • Hmm yeah I don't think I can ship there, Primefac. My Canadian connection just texted to say they can order pot online, probably easier than Girl Scout cookies. But I'm very impressed with the reverse-engineering bit! Drmies (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).

  Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the administrator policy now requires that prior written consent be gained from the Arbitration Committee to mark a block as only appealable to the committee.
• Following a community discussion, consensus has been found to impose the extended-confirmed restriction over the topic areas of Armenia and Azerbaijan and Kurds and Kurdistan.

  Technical news

• The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.

  Arbitration

• The arbitration case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 24 February 2023.
• In December, the contentious topics procedure was adopted which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period. There is a detailed summary of the changes and administrator instructions for the new procedure. The arbitration clerk team are taking suggestions, concerns, and unresolved questions about this new system at their noticeboard.

  Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
• Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.

What has woollen socks and lawn tennis to do with reverting the article on pine phone? BP OMowe (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• Me too. (?) Drmies (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • " Restored revision 1109689940 by Zache (talk): Rv sock, LTA " Googling those just added to my confusion lol BP OMowe (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
    • I guess Google didn't direct you to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse. That Pine stuff, that's serious abuse of Wikipedia. Oh, now I remember--the guy is another one of those Men Who Hate Women With Bodies. He's the reason, if we need a reason, to watch Turning Red. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, User:92.14.216.40/User:88.110.119.210 has largely been restricting themself to the belligerent haunting of the Talk:2023 page, now as User:88.110.119.72, an IP blocked for similar disruptive engagement there a couple of weeks back. (They have form on current-year articles, e.g. [20], [21].) Ludicrously, they claim never to have been blocked then, presumbaly realising they forgot to hop to a new IP, that the previous blockee was not them, despite making identical points. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• Gotcha. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Ha, once again, in the time it has taken me to lay this down to you, someone else has dealt with the disruption, drawing the same conclusion as to the sockmaster. Thanks @NinjaRobotPirate:!Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
    • Yeah, it's pretty suspicious. I have no idea why you'd lie about something so obvious. If they try to IP hop, we can always try more range blocks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
      • They do sustain a pattern of excessive optimism as to the credibility of denying their smouldering trousers, evidently undampened by experience, but this takes the biscuit. My understanding of ranges isn't great; are the two 88.110.119.nnn IPs in a range that could feasibly be blocked without excessive disruption? That said, they've a tendency to use what appear to me to be very wide variety of different IP addresses, if largely in the same geolocation. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
        • You mean this range?Drmies (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
          • Yes, looks like that hits the nail on the head. Thanks for the block. Certainly everything 2022 and 2023 is this individual. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello Drmies, could you please delete this while you're at it? Thanks. Silikonz💬 20:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• Haha, again? Sure thing. And I blocked User talk:Emislays as a freebie. ;) Drmies (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  Just saw that, thanks :) and maybe this, may be out of scope. Silikonz💬 20:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Based on the information in UTRS appeal #69221 and after investigating with my checkuser glasses, I'd like to soften the block on the IP address involved, such that it is anon-only. Happy to provide more information if you wish. My opinion takes into account the specific nature of the IP address involved. -- Yamla (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• User:Yamla, maybe this is better handled via email then? I'll drop you a line. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! --Yamla (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't know you were a new editor. Certainly explains a lot.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Hmm I was summoned? Drmies (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Not formally. You can see for yourself, though, what's happened since I posted the message here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure, Bbb--what did I miss? But what a bunch of silliness. I was just thinking the other day that it's been a long time since I've been called to ANI; I guess this counts double. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
      • Did I miss a policy change? Shouldn't it be at AN or ANI. Oh, and Welcome to Wikipedia. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
        • Thank you sir. May I be autoconfirmed? Drmies (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

          Sorry, you are currently under a cloud.😛. BTW, Risker is really getting het up. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

          Shades of Thomas Aquinas!Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, I wanted to follow-up on a block you made on a user for POV editing. They seem to be continuing this behavior [22], [23]atTalk:2023 China balloon incident, citing/hinting at conspiracy theories relating to the COVID-19 pandemic, per Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#Current consensus, item [14]. Would appreciate if you could take a look. Carter00000 (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Noted that you have followed-up on this request. Thank you very much for your assistance. Carter00000 (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that was not a difficult call, it was so obvious. Thanks for pointing it out. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Hah. I have my own theories about that balloon, or rather its payload, which I will keep to myself. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Im not sure if Im supposed to leave a notice or not but to be safe, I mentioned you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Softlemonades in a discussion about me and Cambial Yellowing Softlemonades (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Ha!--Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

You have my vote. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Please send all campaign donations to MWGA, P.O. Box/box/box 23, Loverlytown, Drmiesland.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

If Brits can vote, I'll vote. I'd say it was about time we came and recolonised you to give you some sane leadership but ... we should sort our own house out first! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, isn't that interesting! Harry, we all have our problems, haha. I forgot who's in charge in your country--some unelected person, right? I'm actually pretty pleased with our prez, but like a NYT editorial (I think that's where I saw it) argued, he's great but shouldn't run again. But then...who? Bbb? Bbb needs to be vetted. Is he even a US citizen? Is he of age? Does ANYONE know his criminal record? Drmies (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Y'all are assuming that Drmies, bless his heart, and I are running for president and vice-president of the US. As for my criminal record, it's just as good as yours, Drmies, but don't worry, I won't tell. BTW, those interested should review our platform.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

OK, I'll fess up--my campaign announcement was a hoax: I'm not US-born. I am interested, however, in being VP of the WWE. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

See this. If for some reason I'm incorrect or wrong, please accept my sincere apologies in advance and please revert. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Update: I'M AN IDIOT. You were providing the diff of the removal, and I didn't notice until after I tried to "help you". Why in the hell didn't I see that? ......... Anyways, I reverted my changes. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

No worries: it's all good. I was pleased to see you also having left a note to the editor--well, not pleased, because it's not good, but it confirmed to me that I wasn't making things up. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey, any chance you could revdel this edit? It's got my real name in it, and while I'm not super secretive (and isn't an entire surprise considering my username), it's still not cool per WP:OUTING. The fact that it was part of a rant about me reverting an edit sourced to a Fandom wiki doesn't make me like it any better. oknazevad (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I revdel'd that. Don't know about oversighting. Did not warn the user. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I warned them . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Deepfriedokra, you're older than me? Damn. Doug Weller, he might be older than you! I think the real question is how old Mandarax really is. Drmies (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

You are but a spring chicken. Mandarax is ageless and eternal. Glad to see Doug is back. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. He expressed a desire for Girl Scout cookies. Anyone going over to his place anytime soon? Drmies (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I was away? About the only time I haven't edited in the last year was on the day of my operations and the next few days. I'm cutting down my watchlist though in favor of some new articles on race and archaeology and nationalism and archaeology. I'm 80. Not long now though. While I'm here, this is a real shocker. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25785648.2023.2168939 Journal of Holocaust Research - "Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust". Look at the names.

' Doug Weller talk 08:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

It's now at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust with arguments that IceWhiz wrote it. Who knows? Doug Weller talk 08:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Only the Spy Balloon knows how old I am. I see that DFO's user page says "I am 431", but unfortunately that's not a declaration of age. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Mandarax, we're growing old together. Let's see if we can get to one million shared articles. What's our count these days? Drmies (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Hmm I don't think this is the whole story. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, for example, I've made more than seven edits to your talk page, and you've done more than two on mine. This tool lists 9047 pages we've both edited. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

<Previous discussion blanked and will be revdel'd> Thanks to everybody who were in other time zones or up later, who helped out. The important thing is to contact the emergency staff at the WMF, since they can start the real-world processes according to protocols that can address the real-world problem. Everything we do on-wiki is just clean-up, and we must be mindful of privacy for minors, whether they're abusing the project for horrible jokes, or are in genuine crisis. Having a fair amount of experience with this sort of thing, including back in the do-it-yourself days, I have an essay in mind that might clarify the issues involved. Acroterion (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks Acroterion. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Linking that, or continuing with the eternal looping back to the Arb case from 2009, I consider that to be a form of harassment when it happens on-wiki, and as you know I have acted against it on a number of occasions. [24]

You mean like this? And this? And of course he did immediately after I asked him not to do exactly THAT [25] Volunteer Marek 18:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• I understand, Marek, what you said about the diff in the thread. Why the editor would do this after you asked him, well, I'm not surprised--I really think that you should email this to ArbCom right now and I will support it. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, mind protecting this article? I put a request at RFPP but its becoming a bit of a battle. IPs (and one registered account) are stating he is dead but I found nothing about it via a Google search. S0091 (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Shot dead in Florida Durban -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Deepfriedokra, I just put semiprotection on it--feel free to add it to the article if you trust the sourcing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Two sources I never heard of. It can wait. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you much. Sheesh, what a day. After an academic hit job, now it's POV editors clamoring to put Seymour Hersh's musings in 2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies and @Deepfriedokra. I am not sure why nothing came up in my search but I will leave it up another extended confirmed editor to update the article if deemed WP:V/WP:RS. S0091 (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is often ahead of the google news feed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Drmies, Regarding wiki article "2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage" [26]; Seymour Hersh posted a subject matter, that includes unsubstantiated allegations against a living person, in a blog post on the social media blog Substack [27]. RS report that Hersh's subject matter about the living person and others include details that media outlets have not verified and have not corroborated [28] [29].

Wiki editors used those RS (that I cited above) and then posted very indepth paragraph of Hersh's unsubstantiated allegations against the living person and others. I'm emphasizing subject matter because it seems to me that his subject matter in his blog is WP:UNDUE & may be even WP:LIVING. Since Hersh didn't publish his piece in a news blog (which sometimes may be an RS), but rather he put a social media blog post it may be WP:NOTRS and WP:QS. I feel his social media blog post is not an acceptable source under WP:SPS "social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources" Now here's where my confusion lies and where I hope you can educate me. On the talk page, some have said that since RS have reported on Hersh writing a blog post (not verifying the subject matter), that "we can and should certainly report on this important voice (since it's been reported in secondary sources) while avoiding a judgement whether it's correct or not." [30].

In this case if feel "it's" means the blog post, not the subject matter. I guess what I'm asking is, 1) Do we write an entire paragraph outlining, in detail, unsubstantiated allegations against a living person and others that are posted on a social media blog, or 2) Do we only include such social media blog posts when RS report on the actual subject matter that stemmed from the blog post? I know this is confusing so I thank you in advance for any time you spend on this. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Before I look at any content, I think it's important to distinguish two things. Whether something is reliable and whether something should be cited are two different things. Something not being reliable (not neutral, not objective, incomplete, etc.) is a reason to discredit it--but if reliable source report on an unreliable thing, we can report what the unreliable thing says, writing it up while properly ascribing what is being said and who said it, and noting whether it's not neutral etc. If an unreliable source says something reliable sources do NOT comment on, we should not use it. Look at WP:FRINGE--we can report nonsense if reliable sources commented on it. The question really is a. whether we should do it in the first place, and we would need strong sourcing to indicate that the unreliable stuff, the nonsense or whatever, is noteworthy, and b. whether editors write that up properly. Does that help? And that kind of avoids the question of the referent of "it", perhaps. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you yes, you're very helpful! But, what confuses me about "we can report nonsense if reliable sources commented on it" is, to what degree to we report it. Example: Let's say RS reports 'unsubstantiated nonsense a famous person writes in a blog about blue birds flying to the moon to eat moon cheese.' Do we write a lenghtly and detailed paragraph about that nonsense, or do we summarise in a few sentences and say something like, "so & so posted on a blog unsubstantitated allegations that blue birds fly to the moon to eat moon cheese." And end it there? Thank you for your help! Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  UPDATE: Because the subject matter in Hersh's blog post about a living person and others include details that media outlets have not verified and have not corroborated, I went ahead and shortened the paragraph [31]. Folly Mox went in after me & added a few words to emphasize Norway's role and I feel their edit looks good [32]. Thanks for all you words of wisdom, Drmies! Best regards ~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

...have you been upsetting? - See ‎Mitchell Haynes gave Drmeis Cannabis (talk · contribs) :D 10mmsocket (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• Just another child that upset himself, and now thinks they can make an impact (get it? impact wrench? 10mm socket?) by trolling. Oh, how cute, they invented "Mitched" which is almost as good as "rickrolled". This is also User:Mitchell Haynes Sockpyppet Account, who is also a ton of others, and will continue to be so, until they grow up or get a date. Hey, I didn't realize this until I got into watching cat and car crash videos, but the 10mm socket is a total meme thing. I thought of ordering you a 10mm socket keychain, for your birthday. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

  I have lost so many of the bloody things, seriously! Keep poking the bad ones with a pointy stick. Sometimes it can be fun! 10mmsocket (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I know you are a reasonable and respected editor. Would you have a moment to look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#RFC on Minneapolis cuisine image. I'm not sure this person knows what they are doing, and I'm wondering if it should be procedurally closed. I was threatened with a block if I didn't remove a photo, and then the very photo she threatened me over is included in the RFC. And most of the RFC was already decided in an RFC two months ago, but the photo she wanted was decided against, so she included it in this new RFC. I'm not sure if this is forum shopping. I understand if you don't want to get involved. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

That's a sweet summary ... You may find that Drmies knows me well.

Now Magnolia677, would you please stop stalking my edits, too, after engaging in a dispute with me? This image fixation has caused enough disruption to several featured articles already. This kind of behavior could give the impression of petty retaliatory behavior. And spreads a dispute unnecessarily. And could cause yet another FA editor (SusanLesch) to leave in frustration over your issues with images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Stop threatening me. Stop intimidating me. Do you understand? I know how bad you want that photo of Owamni on the article, but a consensus of editors don't. Please don't humiliate yourself over a stupid photo. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I have just about zero concern (until they go POV) about any images in the article. I've watched talk page disruption over images for two years as SusanLesch has worked to try to restore content to FA standards so a FAR can be brought, and she has had nothing but interference over images (and amazingly has mostly kept her cool). I want you to stop impeding progress in content over trivial image discussions (which became decidedly less trivial when you added a POV image and caption to the article. And less trivial again when you stalked my edits, considering what I saw at Duluth, Minnesota and what also happened at Manganese, Minnesota). I want this over focus on images to cease so others can focus on content. Hence an RFC, and I really don't care which way it comes out, as long as the disruption ends. As long as there's no POV, I don't care what image is in the article; it's an encyclopedia, not a picture book. And I didn't or can't threaten you with a block; the person opining that you should be banned happens to be an arb-- all I did was point out that this behavior extends beyond Minneapolis, as I've seen it at Duluth and Manganese.

Now, if you want to discuss with me, or talk about me where you think it's behind my back, not a good idea to use Drmies' talk to do it. User talk:SandyGeorgia is that-a-way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I came to Drmies because everyone with over 100,000 edits knows he's one of the most reasonable editors on here. You can cherrypick whatever false narrative you want. Manganese, Minnesota was a disaster, and Minneapolis was a tourguide, and with every attempt I made to clean up the truckloads of puffery, I was opposed. But your attempt to intimidate me, and silence me, and threatening to topic ban me, are unacceptable and you need to stop. Do you understand? Magnolia677 (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

User talk:SandyGeorgia Is That-A-Way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Magnolia, certainly your first sentence is very true and greatly appreciated. Sandy, you have to admit--that's a good move. But Magnolia, what you pointed out as a threat, well that's not really a threat--Sandy is not an administrator (right?) and if she were she wouldn't be able to do anything pertaining to you given the mutual involvement. So, rather than a threat, it's a possible course of action. I cannot gauge to which extent such an effort might be successful. You know I appreciate your work here, and I hope we'll do more of it.

I looked at the RfC. I also think it's a bit complicated but they're always complicated, if it's not a simple yes or no to one question. Still, if I had to close it, I think I could figure it out. What I would leave out is the stuff about the other articles--I think you were pointing at another place, with a picture, etc., and I don't know what to do with that. What I'm really hoping for is that you (both of you, I guess) see the best in each other's edits, but that's kind of saccharine of me, knowing and appreciating both of you, and thus already being somewhat involved but torn. Still, a different RfC on a similar but sufficiently different topic, even if it was only a few months ago, I wouldn't have a problem with that. I try to think of RfCs not as things one wins or loses, but as processes that hopefully lead to article improvement, and so I do think you probably need to pull back a bit. Magnolia--I really do appreciate you as an editor. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh DrReasonableandRespected (iPAd typing from car hotspot), I'd feel much more magnanimous about Magnolia's editing if they hadn't followed me to Tourette syndrometomake an image change that does not concord with MOS. I don't fancy the idea of finding myself in the position of other editors/articles Magnolia has targeted over unhelpful and often misguided image issues. Should you be willing to host on your talk further examples and discussion of same, I can elucidate here after I pick up the kiddos from the airport. While Minneapolis is only one among thousands of potential FARs for me, it has become a singular focus for Magnolia, and it would be nice if they would allow SusanLesch (who has responded amazingly well to every request I've made, including reducing the boosterism) some room to work to prepare for a FAR. When Minnesota had an entire suite of FAs, WP:MINN was a vibrant WikiProject and she had lots of help. Now she doesn't. She may not always be up on everything re WP:WIAFA, but she's pleasant and trying her darn hardest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Drmies. I just read your reply regarding No-kill shelter and I am sorry for the oversight. I had noticed a very large edit from an IP user that was unsourced and with what appeared as a non-NPOV edit summary. My intention was to quickly remedy the situation and it is clear I acted too fast, despite my best intentions. Thanks for pointing it out and please know it's noted. Ppt91 (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• Ppt91, I hear you, and I really appreciate that. Thank you for your note and your email. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

You know [33]] see my talk page and Gamaliels. Doug Weller talk 16:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello Drmies, I've removed the "Bejrisch case request", as it was declined by a majority of the committee as premature. Let me know if you have any questions. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks. I have questions, but I'll just keep em to myself. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I will answer the five questions you have: the answer to question #1 is yes; the answer to question #2 is maybe; the answer to question #3 depends on question #2; the answer to question #4 is absolutely; and the answer to question #5 depends on the Chinese spy balloon over the southeastern US that has not yet been shot down but, depending on questions #2 and #3, may be shortly. I hope this helps. If you have any additional questions that you wish to keep to yourself, please don't ask them at the WP:Beerhouse.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
    • I was afraid already that that would be the answer for #1. Thanks for clearing that up. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Holocaust in Poland and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, GeneralNotability (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi drmies,

I reckon this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rational_Software_Architect&oldid=1099667592 was over-zealous.

I agree the article was pretty much an ad for an old product. But that product is not UML, it's a tool that people might use or might have used to create UML models. I suggest a one sentence or one paragraph description of the product on Rational Software, and Rational Software Architect should redirect there.

What do you think? Paul Foxworthy (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Paul, I think you know a lot more about this than I do, and if you can do a sentence or a paragraph with some secondary sources, you will have done a good thing. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Did you mean to create this page in the User: namespace? I don't think I've ever seen that template used in the main space. —Mainframe98 _talk 18:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• No I didn't. Drmies (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know the "code," but what's the frequency, Kevin. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• It's a thing, isn't it. I thought about asking what he meant but meh. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Drmies,

You deleted Big Kidd as being the work of a block-evading editor and now a new editor has created Talk:Big Kidd objecting to the deletion. Can you use your CU goggles to see if this is a new incarnation of the previous editor? Many thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Drmies. I was going to post a new thread about WP:THQ#User abusing deletion power., but I'll add it here since it seem related to what Liz posted above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

There's also something odd going on at Col Darcy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted the edits that added a nowikied db-g7 tag, and removed some sources from that page. I would guess that, editorial issues aside, this was something screwing up in the visual editor. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Liz, Marchjuly, feel free to help me out. I think Alypeters (talk · contribs), Stemhuse, and Eugedo are also socks of Dictations or Cyrus watson, whatever his name was--see the SPIs in my contributions. I'm dizzy from the f***ing socks. And I'm wondering if the Australian rap contributor isn't Big Kidd who's now getting pissed at the guy who's supposed to write his article, and is ratting him out: Col Darcy is a paid job too. As Wolf Blitzer says, stand by--I may need your help/judgment. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

So Alypeters is not confirmed with Dictations etc., but their pattern of editing is perfectly in line with the socks I've seen. I blocked them. There's more socking in the history of that LivePlace article, which connects Alypeters to other Dictations accounts--but I gotta go and walk dogs right now. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Ha, I think I got it. Dinoguysss, who's a clear version of User:Dictations, created Col Darcy (an Australian rapper), and User:Hands of Bar, another clear sock (via CU and fingerprints), expanded it--and I think they used it as a sales pitch. I think the Australian rap lover is taking offense at the competition's article still being up. It's beef! Drmies (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Glad you seem to have figured things out. I was just letting you know about the Teahouse post as a courtesy. I didn't really know about any UPE or socking. My guess is that if they went to all the trouble to try and do such things once before, they'll probably be back at some point; so, it seems salting the title was a reasonable thing to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, Juanochoa1234567$ (talk · contribs) who you partially blocked from List of Asian countries by population is just making the same edit in multiple other articles, and repeatedly pushing Russian nationalist talking points on the talk pages. I don't think the partial block is going to cover it. See here and here for the latest. 25stargeneral (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• I saw that they were editing talk pages, not articles. They might run out of leash soon. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Further to comments at user talk:Nilpriyo, unfortunately I haven't kept a list of all the apparently related accounts that I have seen, but a very quick check of editing history produced the following small selection: Its.com85, Itsrik7, Siddhartha sengupta2001, & Nilpriyo. The promotional nature of the editing looks like COI/UPE, but if so it's very incompetently done. It may be a group of fans. I really don't know. Whatever the situation there is enough promotional editing, incompetence, lack of cooperation etc, that probably blocking all the accounts is the best option in the long run. JBW (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks JBW. So, I just blocked Its.com85 for a week, for logged-out editing. You blocked Itsrik7. I blocked Siddhartha yesterday, indefinitely, for COI/CIR/etc. Nilpriyo is blocked for disruptive editing, for a week, for refusing to answer questions (and there's a lot of logged-out editing there as well). But there's tons of IPs in all those articles--I don't know how bad their edits are, but I do know that the ones I see are unverified and always unexplained. Maybe User:MrsSnoozyTurtle can keep an eye on it, and report to AIV/RFPP if needed. Thanks JBW, Drmies (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you JBW and Drmies. Following Nilpriyo's block expiring, they say that they are too busy to respond to the concerns on their Talk Page (link, and also somehow also claiming that I am slandering you!), yet they have somehow found the time to make about 10 other edits...

  Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

An Anon editor suddenly popped into the talk page at 2022 Nords Stream [34] to target me & only me to personally attack by using insults, name calling, & very disparaging comments about me. [35] [36] I have a feeling that the anon editor may be a sockpuppet (and possibly a sock of an editor on that page). Anyway, Can you tell me how I can find out if they're a sockpuppet or troll so I can get them banned from that page due to their disruptive & disparaging comments about me? I thank you in advance for any help you can give me, and best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• I blocked them for harassment; I'm sorry you had to suffer that kind of attack. You could start an SPI--but no one will ever explicitly link the IP to a registered account, and of course you'd have to figure out (or make a fair assessment) of who that user might be. We're not going to run CU on an IP without some indication of what might be behind it--does that make sense? But do keep me and my colleagues in the loop. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you so much! Your swift & prompt action means so very much to me. I appreciate you! Best regards always~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Vast history of disruptive edit warring and personal attacks from a user at 42.190.128.0/18 (+ more IP ranges). Thank you.

For your specific case, refer to User talk:Drmies/Archive 142#Belligerent/edit warring IP

AP 499D25 (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• AP 499D25, thanks, but you really don't have to do the "specific case" thing--I don't have a specific case. And where did that "slink" come from? Drmies (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  I just wanted to point out the last time you were involved / took action against that editor. As for "slink" it's Template:Section link which I tried to use so the link shows up with a section sign rather than a hash, though it clearly didn't work here for an unknown reason. AP 499D25 (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Vast history of disruptive edit warring and personal attacks from a user at 42.190.128.0/18 (+ more IP ranges). Thank you. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for giving another notice, I didn't see it here. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

No worries--I love getting mail. At least I didn't get dragged to ArbCom again. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, I see that on 31 Jan you blocked User:Serratra as a sock of User:Jettew10222. I am seeing some behavioral evidence that active user User:Dinglepincter is the same user. For example, compare Serratra's nonsensical Computing Reference Desk answer here to Dinglepincter's latest one here. Also both users tend to post erroneous/misleading answers at the Teahouse, such as Serratra's here and Dinglepincter's here. Dinglepincter has been warned about this by User:Cullen328 here and User:David notMD here.

Apologies if this should have been posted at SPI; I'm not very familiar with that process, and could not see how to add a new suspected sock to an existing investigation. CodeTalker (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• I see that Guerillero already took care of matters--thanks! And thank you, Guerillero. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
  • You are welcome, Drmies -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 00:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
    • I am always unhappy when this type of editor gives out incorrect information at the Teahouse. Their latest "answer" advised refbombing with poor quality sources to push a draft into the encyclopedia. Ughhh. Cullen328 (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

      Thanks to all of you! CodeTalker (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)