Drmies

Specific discussion about Wikimedia editors and editing of Wikimedia project pages.
User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 329
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Drmies

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:40 am

Drmies, the invertebr-sorry, I mean inveterate bully has decided to start going after James J. Lambden. Seems they got in a disagreement over Sean Hannity's page and Drmies responded by pursuing Lambden to the article on Patriot Prayer and a talk page discussion about the Southern Poverty Law Center. In the first case he reverts an edit by Lambden stating in the editorial voice that the founder of Patriot Prayer had denounced racism. He replaced it with the quote "said he denounced racism", which obviously casts more doubt on the founder's denunciation. Drmies argues he is just quoting the source, as if he isn't aware why someone might find that phrasing and putting it in quotes to be slanted. The second case he responds to Lambden's comments about SPLC by suggesting an act the SPLC called a hate crime was also considered a hate crime by the FBI. Yet the very source Drmies cites to support his stance states:
While the FBI has opened a civil rights investigation into the arson, The Associated Press reports that the agency says it's too early to say whether the fire should be considered a hate crime.
What is most galling about this situation to me, though, is the double standard of the situation. Drmies has been relentlessly defending Volunteer Marek for nearly two years. Given Lambden has long been in quarrels with Marek, who accuses Lambden of "stalking" on various occasions, it is hard not to see Drmies as perhaps engaging in what he views as a form of tit-for-tat with Lambden. Only difference is Drmies will have no shortage of established backers rushing to his aid. Right in that discussion on his talk page three leftist editors rush in to back Drmies up. He justifies his following of Lambden as a response to his "obvious partisanship" yet Drmies never challenges Marek's constant accusations of "stalking" against Lambden despite the same defense being just as valid. Not only that, Drmies escalates the rhetoric by stating in response to Lambden's objections:
Now, if you want more people following you around, by all means keep posting here.
This is a member of the Arbitration Committee posting such intimidating remarks publicly. What is truly a joke here is the talk of partisanship. His pal Marek once suggested Lambden should be banned from political topics for having an image of Trump on his user page. In the exact same thread where Drmies accuses Lambden of partisanship he rails about "right-wing tennis socks" and regales one of his leftist backers with a story about how he wore a Ruth Bader Ginsburg shirt only to find one of those stupid Alabama rednecks (his host) doesn't know she is one of the most liberal justices on the Supreme Court, right after he talked about watching Rachel Maddow. Of course, whether he is sincere or just trying to get under Lambden's skin is anyone's guess. He does try to play cute about the following, on the one hand saying he has already edited those pages as a defense yet wryly admitting to following him in the same response.

Proabivouac
Posts: 354
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Drmies

Post by Proabivouac » Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:25 am

This guy is a professor at a major American university, he used his Wikipedia contributions to win tenure, this was in the news, now he runs Wikipedia…
Wikimedia Foundation wrote: But he won his colleagues over by showing them the peer-reviewed aspects of Wikipedia, like the Good Article and Featured Article processes. And he contributed to articles particularly useful to Auburn University Montgomery, including the article on the school and a biography of a colleague, who told Michel that was really cool.
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/04/06/t ... ributions/

If we can't start using even his real name, this place is hopeless.

If he used Wikipedia contributions to gain tenure, why does he not sign his learned contributions? How are we supposed to cite his writing? He is a professor of English and Wikipedia is a major work in the English language. Shouldn't all the articles including Brian Peppers and the like be cited as, "Real Name, editor." etc.? Not that he is always the author but surely he is the editor. They do call themselves editors, right? And he is their king.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 329
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: Drmies

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Fri Oct 13, 2017 10:05 am

He ran for the Wikimedia Foundation board so his real name is freely mentioned. Drmies also has an alt under his real name.

Proabivouac
Posts: 354
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Drmies

Post by Proabivouac » Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:57 am

The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 10:05 am
He ran for the Wikimedia Foundation board so his real name is freely mentioned. Drmies also has an alt under his real name.
Yes, he's not exactly hiding. What I find hilarious, among so many other things, is that the writer of the Foudnation blog piece, LiAnna Davis, is so oblivious to how Wikipedia works on the ground level that she wrote "And he contributed to articles particularly useful to Auburn University Montgomery, including the article on the school and a biography of a colleague" as if this were a good thing. And maybe it is, but this kind of quid pro quo, editing articles about one's employer and colleagues in order to receive a promotion, is supposed to be an unforgivable sin. A discussion recently linked from Wikipediocracy showed you grilling him about another alleged confict of interest. I don't know the details here (do tell!) but who can be surprised that he wouldn't take that alleged rule seriously. He is really the ultimate paid editor as these "Wikipedians in residence" didn't receive tenure.

I dont know much about Auburn, but if it's anything like a typical American school, politically loanded edits will have greatly helped, not hurt, him with his colleages. Next to the "studies" departments that are excplitily named for forms of advocacy, English is probably the worst. Well, that or cultural anthropology, it's a close call. It's a particular conundrum for critics who want Wikipedia to be neutral but also written by academics. Asking him to stick to his own area of expertise couldn't hurt, but unfortunately that area appears to be Wikipedia as a whole. Seems unlikely that they're going to hire a Professor of Conservapedia (much less Breitbart) anytime soon.
Last edited by Proabivouac on Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Proabivouac
Posts: 354
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Drmies

Post by Proabivouac » Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:52 pm

Similarly, I'm not sure that one can separate ArbCom's hard line on the use of gendered pronouns, "gender gap" agitation and the like from the institutional ambitions of several of its members. This is exactly the kind of thing about which they can say, "look, I did all this wildly biased shit" and the response will be "oh, that's marvelous." Teaming up with institutional knowledge producers sounds like a step in the right direction until one appreciates what the nature of Wikipedia's pitch is likely to be. What they want is a piece of the gravy train which goes, we'll brainwash people to think your way and in return you subsidize and compel the next batch to purchase our services.

Jimbo's comments about "fake news" can be read in this light: Wikipedia wants to be an approved source that promises to shield readers from the likes of Breitbart and reinforce the narratives pushed by the schools and the New York Times. Encompassing the sum of all scholarly knowledge isn't working out very well, they can't claim to be an improvement on this count, but they're very good at mass propaganda, and any paid editor knows that Wikipedia's greatest value is in providing the appearance of neutral third party confirmation which turns Bobbie's or Susie's opinion into "scientists have discovered."

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 329
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: Drmies

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:55 pm

Proabivouac wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:57 am
Yes, he's not exactly hiding. What I find hilarious, among so many other things, is that the writer of the Foudnation blog piece, LiAnna Davis, is so oblivious to how Wikipedia works on the ground level that she wrote "And he contributed to articles particularly useful to Auburn University Montgomery, including the article on the school and a biography of a colleague" as if this were a good thing. And maybe it is, but this kind of quid pro quo, editing articles about one's employer and colleagues in order to receive a promotion, is supposed to be an unforgivable sin. A discussion recently linked from Wikipediocracy showed you grilling him about another alleged confict of interest. I don't know the details here (do tell!) but who can be surprised that he wouldn't take that alleged rule seriously. He is really the ultimate paid editor as these "Wikipedians in residence" didn't receive tenure.
Regarding his connection to Marek, it is through third parties that may be completely innocent on their own part. His claim to have been aware of some aspect and then to have forgotten is not terribly compelling, but it is certainly possible those third parties are not aware as it would represent a conflict either way. As such, I feel it would be improper to reveal the nature of the connection unless there was a vital need for the information. The main reason I find it significant is the extent of his involvement in other COI matters. One matter I raised on the Proboard WR concerned the article on a major donor to the Auburn foundation that supports both the main campus and the Montgomery campus. It was created as a part of a Wikipedia editing course run by Drmies through Auburn University Montgomery. Said article has since been deleted as a borderline advertisement.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 329
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: Drmies

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:50 am

Just saw Drmies pop up on the Alex Jones page. The page is getting a lot of edits due to the coordinated Internet-wide purge Jones is currently experiencing. However, this edit by Drmies stuck out as being rather mean-spirited. It is true that Alex Jones sells products, such as supplements, on his shows and sites. What is absurd is that Drmies has saw fit to mention this fact in the very first paragraph of the lede. As someone with a great deal of experience with Wikipedia's style guidelines, he would know the first paragraph is for only the most notable details about a subject. By no stretch of the imagination are any of the products Jones sells, let alone supplements specifically, so notable as to be mentioned in that first paragraph. Given how this aspect of his work is often depicted by critics of Jones, the only logical reason to do this is to mock or belittle Jones through Wikipedia, at a time when he is undoubtedly under some stress. Of course, Drmies feels comfortable doing such a thing not only because of his prominent position on the site, but because Jones has the double curse for a BLP: he is a fringe theorist and he is a Trump supporter.

Pudeo
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 7:29 am

Re: Drmies

Post by Pudeo » Mon Aug 27, 2018 12:05 am

There was an ANI thread about Drmies related to civility. It was swiftly closed 20 minutes after it was started, before anyone could voice further concerns, by Bbb23. Bbb23's request for adminship was nominated by none other than Drmies.

Such integrity.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 329
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: Drmies

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Mon Aug 27, 2018 3:07 am

Pudeo wrote:
Mon Aug 27, 2018 12:05 am
There was an ANI thread about Drmies related to civility. It was swiftly closed 20 minutes after it was started, before anyone could voice further concerns, by Bbb23. Bbb23's request for adminship was nominated by none other than Drmies.

Such integrity.
To be fair, the examples were generally unimpressive, though the position is correct. Drmies can be a real nasty asshole to people and was, in fact, that way towards the person filing that ANI in the discussion linked about the Sarah Jeong dispute. He was like that to me many times and I kept trying to be the bigger person, but he just didn't stop behaving that way. Seeing how he treated Auerbach after Gamaliel had gone after the guy's job pretty much sealed it for me. Just another crooked admin who abuses his position and needs to be called out.

Pudeo
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 7:29 am

Re: Drmies

Post by Pudeo » Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:14 pm

The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Mon Aug 27, 2018 3:07 am
To be fair, the examples were generally unimpressive, though the position is correct. Drmies can be a real nasty asshole to people and was, in fact, that way towards the person filing that ANI in the discussion linked about the Sarah Jeong dispute. He was like that to me many times and I kept trying to be the bigger person, but he just didn't stop behaving that way. Seeing how he treated Auerbach after Gamaliel had gone after the guy's job pretty much sealed it for me. Just another crooked admin who abuses his position and needs to be called out.
Yeah, that's true. But I was mostly upset with the "blue wall of silence" thing happening again where abusive admins are being protected by admins who are their friends. I could have voiced my criticism about his actions in that ANI thread, but I couldn't because either they're closed instantly or then everything will be boomeranged to the point it's ridiculous. I'm sure you're aware of Drmies indef blocking users because their nickname starts with "Kek" based on a made-up policy and doing that with a personal attack, since IIRC you wrote an article about it. Basically, even if you're an admin who's supposed to act better than others according to ADMINCOND, you can go telling people to 'fuck off' for years before you will be brought to ArbCom.

I could tell some background information about my Wikipedia experience related to these kind of issues if anyone cares. I used to defend some "men's rights" editors (like Memills) in 2012 and 2013, because I found the sanction implementation really crazy with a few clearly "progressive feminist" admins wikilawyering well-meaning users and handing blocks despite having had conflicts with the MRM editors themselves. That admin abuse was clearly politicized and also streched to topics like evolutionary psychology (Memills is a professor of EP). The core of the problem was that only a handful of admins were enforcing the sanctions, and they chose to volunteer for it because they hated the 'reactionaries'.

I have one block because of this, which was made for a bogus reason and then repealed, in Wikipedia. Some users wanted to create a Wikiproject called Men's Issues and it was instantly attacked by the admin clique. I critiqued the bad-faith approach, and in the edit accidentally altered Cailil's comment because I had lost track of the line I was writing my comment on (that happens when you focus on other browser tabs...). What I inserted in his message was pretty much that was in my own comment and made no sense in his comment. I was blocked for one week without any questions asked by KillerChihuahua, another feminist admin enforcing the sactions for it. I asked for a block review and DangerousPanda called me a liar in the decline reason. I filed another review. Five days later Tariqabjotu unblocked me and said my explanation made perfect sense. Bwilkins aka DangerousPanda attacked him harshly for unblocking me. A long ANI thread ensued. I guess that back in 2013 the atmosphere at ANI was more neutral and the community found that my unblocking was the right thing to do and DangerousPanda made incivil comments, although the ANI thread was closed because there won't be a "head on a platter" moment according to the closer. Admins protecting other admins. DangerousPanda is probably the most incivil admin there ever has been, having dropped F-bombs all the time and telling editors he blocked to 'rot in hell'. Eventually he got an ArbCom case filed by MrX, in which I and Memills submitted evidence as well, and he was desysopped. But he was allowed to go on for years before that happened.

I must say that Wikipedia, and life, hasn't been that gentle on the admins who were abusive towards the early MRM editors. Kaldari was desysopped. Kevin Gorman was desysopped (and deceased). Dreadstar was desysopped (and deceased). Gamaliel was admonished by the ArbCom. Bbb23 was the last admin who kept blocking Memills as his self-appointed parole officer, despite having heated arguments with him on his talk page. FYI, Bbb23 called my criticism of his close a "personal attack".

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest