Drmies

[The Devil's Advocate]

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]

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…

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.

[The Devil's Advocate]

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

[Proabivouac]

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.

[Proabivouac]

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."

[The Devil's Advocate]

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.