Jump to content

User talk:Drmies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mail

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Can you enlighten me

as to why I might have been pinged in such illustrious company to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads? I know my memory is not what it used to be, but I don't recall ever showing any interest in roads, let alone ones in the US. Of course I will understand if you are as stumped as I am. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP cat pest

Hi, IP user 86.40.54.89 (User talk:Drmies/Archive 149#Possible IP evasion?) is back and has resumed their prolific but substandard category editing. I reverted them for a few last week and they returned with improvements (though still not perfect) but this week it has gone back to stuff like this, all minor but not correct, fiddly for others to fix, and something they have already been warned about already. Unfortunately I think when one IP is blocked they still continue to edit from another - 109.255.177.252 - so may do so again. Crowsus (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing to add unsourced content, unexplained removal of maintenance tags, repeated addition of unsourced content

Hi Drmies, Found that there were 2 IP address ranges 2001:1388:A44:0:0:0:0:0 and 2001:1388:A45:0:0:0:0:0 All edits from the IP address found to be the same person. Harassing and deleting content in other articles which had administrators warn and rollback more than 30 disruptive edits Found the latest edit, redo it. Repeatedly adding unsourced content and deleting maintenance tags by correcting them and not explained in the article Nine (singer) in terms of being a fan club Due to adding content to live broadcast activities to sell products Duplicate content is added which is not important. As with most of the content in this article concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality.

There is a sockpuppet account named Rosalinares1 who evaded their block by creating a new IP and restoring the same old edits that they were blocked for at Nine (singer).

Please see Nine (singer): Revision history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nine_(singer)&action=history

Please see this edits: 2001:1388:A44:5700:28FE:5648:2A79:8595 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1388:A44:5700:28FE:5648:2A79:8595 2001:1388:A44:EDDB:98F3:C8BE:82C6:175D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1388:A44:EDDB:98F3:C8BE:82C6:175D 2001:1388:A44:23CC:DCF2:FD41:F2BA:FCE3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1388:A44:23CC:DCF2:FD41:F2BA:FCE3

Revision history Nine (singer) has only one person, IP addresses starting with 2001:1388:A45 and 2001:1388:A44 all are the same person The edits will be made in the same way, namely adding information to the article without the source in Nine (singer) and deleting and disturbing other articles. which always has admin rollback This person made repeated changes with new IP addresses like this.

The article Nine (singer) does not meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Much of the content in these sections seems to be little known events and awards. Likely of interest only to a small audience.

Much of it should be removed:

The entire article was edited by the same person, unexplained removal of maintenance tags, and recently used a new IP address to add a lot of unsourced content.

repeated addition of unsourced content I think examining a person is difficult. This person from Lima, Peru uses a different IP address every time they resolve. Every time delete and add information to another article. will be reversed Then edit again with the new IP address.

This person created information in the Nine (singer) article and also caused mischief in other articles. Add information without references Administrators always roll back edits that this person deleted on other articles. Editing that disturbs another article and edited and added information only to the article Nine (singer) The person using all IP addresses in this Nine (singer) article is the same person who removed the maintenance tag without editing it.

The person using all the IP addresses I attached is the same person. I'm only giving examples because there are many. The entire article Nine (singer) has an IP address from the same person from Lima, Peru, but the IP address in the update is different every time the information is added. This person deleted the maintenance tag notice. Delete without correcting Most articles lack references. As I looked at the article's history, Nine (singer) has been doing this for a long time, but no user has come to check on this person. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1388:A45:F15F:C574:7A91:49D9:AAC9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1388:A45:7B00:F810:2A14:7BCB:F48B

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1388:A45:7B00:358F:FBE6:A148:46A0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1388:A44:40B6:504C:F2CB:D823:F9B

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1388:A45:AEDB:F872:834B:5232:4D3E

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1388:A44:EA0C:2594:EA67:F737:FD4B MeetHoneyBee (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

unban request at AN

Hi Drmies, since this is a WP:3X ban I don't know if I'm expected to notify you personally, but just in case, since you're the original block admin, please see WP:AN#84Swagahh unban request. Cheers. -- asilvering (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VMLY&R (Companies)

Hi Drmies, could you take a look at what's going on here? TaylorLvx has clearly gamed to autoconfirmed so I thought at first it was an obvious sock of TruthEditor3, but on second thought they seem to be editing against each other. Strange. C F A 💬 21:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

SerialNumber54129 19:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're next!

I recall reading that Danton shouted this at Robespierre as he was trundled off to the guillotine. Can't recall the source. Can you?

These things didn't happen back in Nisus' day, but only "old timers" like us recall those times. :) -- Euryalus (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Haha, I quit teaching that: there's no point anymore in assignment texts that are more complicated than an Instagram poem. Shame--no more Virgil, Homer, Dante, Chaucer, Shakespeare. Then again, that nursing students have to take humanities classes provides our bread and butter, but the use for them is pretty limited of course. It gets worse if you ask a class full of lit crit seniors what their favorite books and authors are, and none of them get any farther than some YA books. Euryalus, I always thought you had one of the best names of any admin, and I'm so glad you're still around. Plus your name has an article, which is cool. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True. Luckily I am yet to be dragged to admin recall for my flagrant disregard of WP:IMPERSONATE. As Robespierre verifiably said, "To punish the oppressors of humanity is clemency; to forgive them is cruelty." Our turns will come.
And re assignments, isn't that what AI is for? Apparently allowed in University essays these days, provided there's some tiny fleck of individuality, or idiosyncratic use of commas, or some other trivial variation. Bah humbug, as someone once said. Anyway: hope you and yours are well. I have a reference book of eighteenth century Dutch warships somewhere, will write an article on one of them for you provided you can explain why the Dutch have such a confusing system of weights and measures. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It frightens me to think that lit majors would rely on AI. I write because I like to write, not because I'm made to. I can understand people focusing on YA, because it's what they're used to (and it's still better than TikTok or YouTube shorts), but going into literature while feeling like writing is a chore... As for the Dutch units of measure, it all boils down to two arnhemse meisjes to each speculaas, and two speculaas to each stroopwafel.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In all seriousness, based on our article I suspect it could be used as much. If is "the weight equivalent of 120 cubic feet (3.398 m3) of shipping space", by extension one could use it to measure capacity or displacement.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah might do that. I've also worked out how to change Amsterdam feet into English feet (because I dont think we have an Amsterdam feet template). But apparently the Admiralty of Rotterdam (and not the others) used Maas feet for ship dimensions. Wtf is a Maas foot? -- Euryalus (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the Maas is the Meuse, then I'd expect that the Maas foot would be the Rotterdam foot (that city being on the Meuse). Our article gives that as equivalent to 312.43 millimetres (1.0250 ft), citing a 19th-century French textbook.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, that's very helpful. I have a few reference sources on Dutch warships of (mostly) seventeenth century, and might try a summer task of filling in some of our blanks in their coverage. Labour of love really - these kind of articles get a handful of views a day and most of those are bots. But whatever. Starting point is being able to translate the basic numbers of ship anatomy before going on to the easy part of their actual history. Hence questions like these. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page 415, near the bottom. Notates it as an "ancient" unit of measure. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serious, serious

Once there was User:Pinzunski, whom i was sure was a sockpuppet of Martimc123, but the investigation yielded nothing. Now, we have User:SukunaZenin, and i am SURE they are a sock of the first account mentioned. They continue to add stuff like transfer speculation to Francisco Trincão or Ricardo Velho (i let it "slide" in the latter, only composed the wording, but reverted the former altogether); now, through an IP (this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:8A0:6832:2C00:E10F:9A77:CE09:D3D7, i also use them, no problem there from where i stand), they resorted to serious insults ("fucking keyboard warrior", "biggot" (sic)) and, as Pinzunski before, warned me that there would be serious consequences if i continue what i'm doing: what am i doing? Trying to make articles readable, without tons of unencyclopedical material (some of their additions are good, i do admit it; the first time around, the legal threats were so "substantiated" that, following two or three days of them, we never heard anything more in that regard).

Attentively (oh, this just in, i'm leaving because: 1 - my summaries will never improve and i realise that may be unfair sometimes; 2 - can't take more of this abuse. Whatever any further investigations may produce it's neither here or there for me, cheers), continue the great work RevampedEditor (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At Kerem Aktürkoğlu, through a new IP, they reinstated EVERYTHING you have reverted (with an "interesting" edit summary to go along)! a promise to you: i won't leave of course, have done NOTHING contrary to WP guidelines (if you except the summaries of course), but i will only edit with my account from now on, no more laziness/not logging off.

Cheers --RevampedEditor (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Alabama Crimson Tide football team

Can you help me? The game summary had a different looking format when I was adding and editing the content. Someone came in and changed it and I would like to have it reverted back to its original format Rolltide pisco (talk) 03:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you pinged me

Since you pinged me, but I think that conversation's going pretty far off topic, I guess I'll respond here. Also, pre-emptively, my apologies if your question was rhetorical. If that's the case, then I guess you can just remove this from your talk page. But I think you were genuinely curious, so here goes. I don't think any of the admins, in either the recall or the AN/I thread, were intentionally covering up for another admin's poor behaviour. If I did, I would have said. Yes, I do think some of them could and should be a lot firmer on other admins, but it's really freaking hard to tell somebody you know and have worked with for years that they're behaving inappropriately. I can't fault anybody for assuming good faith of their friends/acquaintances. Well, I mean I could, obviously, but it would feel petty and vindictive and I won't.

I get that people do it, though. The fact you can have a situation where Person A says something mean, Person B says Person A was wrong, and Person C thinks "Yes, I agree, but Person A is my friend and I don't like Person B enough to jeopardize that" isn't great, but it's really common. So common, in fact, that we've ended up with a situation that's even more worse- there's an unwritten social rule that in either scenario, should Person B say something against Person A, everybody etching will assume that they're now friends/allies with Person C and therefore agrees with everything else Person C does. Or, alternatively, we take it one step back and deliberately read bad faith into the situation by saying "Person B didn't tell their friend to stop- therefore they must stand by Person A's actions and we must punish them as well". Which is also not great! My saying this isn't particularly revolutionary, I know, but it's true and I think I've made peace with the fact that I can't change any of it. The only thing I can do, I think, is try and avoid copying this behaviour myself.

I guess all of this is to say that I think I can understand why you think I'd be acting differently, but you asked, you pinged me, and I figured you deserved/wanted an answer as to why I'm acting in the way I am. Does this explain where I'm coming from? Feel free to ask again, or feel free to tell me to sod off. Again, if it was a rhetorical question all along, apologies. (And I mean that quite genuinely). But also, while I'm here, could you explain the wounded deer comment? I've been trying to get what you meant by it. Could you clarify/expand? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think there's some A/B/C confusion, and I don't think C said B was wrong because C and A are friends. You got a couple Cs here saying what A said wasn't wrong enough to fire them from their jobs, and that's what we're talking about, really. Never mind that A, B, and C are not coming into this the same way: B was actively looking to get A demoted, and if a couple of Cs don't agree, then B is looking for another forum in which to get A demoted--this procedure, which seems to be a relative easy way to demote someone.
    A wounded deer is a deer that's been shot or whatever and is now attracting attention from other hunters, and is a much easier prey. And anyone can shoot--one of the signers of the anti-Fastily petition has 300 mainspace edits and a very tenuous grasp of WP:RS, and has voted "you're fired" (basically "per nom") in both the recalls we've seen. I find this problematic, yes. The ArbCom procedure is much more difficult, and I think it should be much more difficult, since it's so easy for admins to make enemies. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • On your first point- if I'm going to be Person B in this scenario, you might want to note B was a bystander in the original thread - there was no "trying one forum, failing, and looking for another". And do you find it relatively easy? I don't. The recall petition can't demote anybody by itself- the community would still need to decide next steps at an RfA. And I don't like the term "demoted", but I think it's interesting that you chose it. Being an admin isn't a reward, and being a regular editor isn't a punishment.
      And thank you for explaining the metaphor. I'm not particularly interested in discussing an identifiable no-name editor's behaviour in a public forum, but without notifying them (It's so middle school), so I think if you have issues with any individual editor, you should bring it up to them, not me. I do find your point about Arbcom interesting, however. I've had a lot of people tell me recently that they think in similar lines to you. I can't say I agree. Maybe it's just be being youthful and optimistic, maybe I'm just not that swayed by the long list of enemies in wait argument, but I think most currently admins would sail pretty easily through an re-RfA, especially if we're going by the 60% and up + trust the crats to discount spite/bad faith !votes. There's a couple admins I think who wouldn't pass, but most have already proven that they're not going to start out-of-process blocking everybody who questions their actions. And I do think it's interesting that you think Arbcom should be less strict. Desycops and admonishments are pretty rare, especially once you consider that most of the behaviours that get administrators desysopped or warned would earn a regular user a nice little enforced Wikibreak of varying lengths. That's probably enough of me being anti-establishment for one day, but I am curious as to what solution you would propose instead. How poorly would you have to view an administrator's conduct before you took action? And, seeing as you have the block button, how poorly would you have to view a non-admin's conduct before you took action? Under whatever new even more strict Arbcom you have in mind, how would those answers look? What avenues would you make availible to discuss administrator conduct? How severe would a potential infraction be before you even examined it? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page Protection for multiple articles

Hey I know I don't usually ask adminstrators to do page protections but now it has gotten serious because the same editor 2601:42:0:4000:f914:fa4b:3a66:3ad2 keeps adding the same edits at multiple articles that are not proven nor found in the cited source they cited. So if you can please do page protection on those articles. Thank You. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Thomas

For such a well-reviewed author who, after all, mainly writes about herself, there is precious little biographical information available. I've ordered her books as Christmas presents for my wife, and will read them myself once she's had a shot at them. Acroterion (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 65

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 65, September – October 2024

  • Hindu Tamil Thisai joins The Wikipedia Library
  • Frankfurt Book Fair 2024 report
  • Tech tip: Mass downloads

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

User:Bluebird207

This individual, whom you blocked a while ago, has created this attack page User talk:162.128.128.7. It's not aimed not at me but I'm sure he did one especially for me once. Not sure if you want to permanently remove it, or what the procedure is. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He's still going, creating User:Roger Eight Roger solely to have a pop at User:Roger 8 Roger and to dig at him (and me) in edit summaries. The account's been blocked but maybe scratch it completely for R8R's sake? This guy seems completely unhinged. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I guess he's too far gone to stop now, so let's see what happens next... ! Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries removed

Thank you for removing those edit summaries. There are similar issues at White-rumped falcon and Termite. This is a problem that's been coming up repeatedly, probably by a single IP editor. The least said about it the better. SchreiberBike | ⌨  13:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Editnotices/Page/Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations

Template:Editnotices/Page/Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions in Hohenlohe and Malaspina

Hi @Drmies:! I've seen your reversions on the tables I edited recently.

  • I was sure that notability issues were related to creating pages for unnotable people; I don't think listing them causes a problem, and erasing everything I done isn't definitely the best solution. Also, Wikipedia is a collaborative project; instead of erasing tables for lack of verifiability, let me invite you to improve what's already there!
  • The tables I make are not genealogies; they are lists of rulers, ordered chronologically by beginning of rule, that somehow intervened/ruled in a part of a territory. For the Hohenlohe case, it's normal that, in Germany, there were lots of rulers, branches and divisions; they had the habit of splitting their inheritances between many children. I only make these distinctions with colours in one table, instead of many separate tables or long lists. Of course, for the Malaspina case it is very difficult to be concise; the family really split up a lot.

I'm sorry if you felt confused. I agree some tables can be hard to understand (The House of Malaspina is definitely one of them), but you can always message me first with your doubts, before undoing in seconds a work that took a lot of time to be done. I won't even bother about your erasings in a page that was clearly under construction. Just speak to me first, instead of justifying in-between edits. Thank you in advance for your understanding! Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the note and the sympathy, but I'm not confused. I'm not "justifying in-between edits": I'm removing a ton of excessive, poorly formatted, unverified, and unencyclopedic material. No, I am not going to improve a genealogy of this size--that's for a different website than ours. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Drmies:, please, tell me which website were you thinking of, because I wouldn't want to throw all my work to trash. I understand that for the Malaspina case, the table got too big, but I don't think it's the case for the Hohenlohe family. As so, I'll revert your erasing in this page. As I told, the page is under construction, and I would appreciate your respect for my work. Thank you in advance for your understanding! Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2024 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) 00:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minesocks

Thanks, I was suspecting all three of those accounts were the same person, but hadn't formalized a report yet.
5.95.128.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) had similar edits, so a little surprised they weren't included. Guessing there wasn't a technical connection, but would you have a look at a behavioral connection? All of their 150 byte+ edits added the same wikitable entry content as the confirmed socks. diff 5.95.128.24 and diff TES2.0 for a comparison. Can provide more if other diffs if needed, though they are all more or less the same. Zinnober9 (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently misleading userpage

Hey Drmies, how have you been? GreenStoneThrow, who left a weird message on my tp[1], claims on their userpage to be Radix and to have some advanced rights like that of Wikimedia steward. It seems that GreenStoneThrow copy-pasted the userpage of the true User:RadiX. I notified RadiX of that [2], but almost 3 weeks have passed and they have not edited on enwiki yet. Maybe an admin should take a look at this, if time permits. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the userpage. Per el.wiki, the user is a sock of an account that hasn't edited en.wiki in a couple of years and is not blocked on en.wiki. I'd block GST but they haven't edited since posting that stupid message on your Talk page on November 1. If they resume editing, I'm happy to block.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That reminds me that maybe one day I should re-read Radix, which I think our user was named for. Very, very weird book. Images from it sometimes return to me. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23, do you know what's wrong with the range calculator tool? Drmies (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look like some more collateral damage due to Fastily's resignation.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if there's something better, but I use {{blockcalc}}.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks--I appreciate that. But the tool was broken a few days ago already. Anyway, yes, another loss for our community, which is how Knitsey put it. Did you see this and the responses to it? I noted in one of my comments on this or the other recall: users with little experience and sometimes even less sense get to weigh in and it all counts up to 15. Who's taking bets on who's next? I don't think Floquenbeam is in any danger yet. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Safe, only because I so seldom do anything around here anymore; but if you recall RFA #2, there were quite a lot of non-fans. Feels like the French Revolution. Who's next at the guillotine? Maybe one of the people who supported it the first two times. That's how guillotines work. Floquenbeam (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will get my knitting needles out. Don't we have an essay somewhere about sitting too close to the guillotine?
@Drmies, I said on the recall that toxicity from RfA's has now transfered to the recall process. Knitsey (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Floq, thanks for reminding me of that shit show--I had kind of forgotten. Glad you are still here. Ha, you have that too? Every time you see one of those old records you start clicking to see if the editors you remember are still here? Sad. Knitsey, I don't know about essays--I teach essay writing but prefer not to read too many. And yes I agree re:toxicity. I don't know, but I'll put down some money on the recall process being re-evaluated three recalls from now. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: thank you, much appreciated.
Btw, since the recall process was mentioned above, let me offer another point of view. I agree that the recall process gives weight to votes from inexperienced editors, who probably have no clue about things. However, on the other hand, it has the great benefit of making it easier to make admins accountable and desysop those who lose the community's trust. I know the vast majority of admins are constructive and I highly appreciate their efforts (apart from the Graham case, I have always voted "Support" in RfAs), but a few admins for a long time took advantage of the complexity of the desysopping process to misuse their tools and get away with it. In the Balkan topics this has become an obvious issue in recent years. Like the admin who blocked, without a prior warning, an established editor with a clean block log for making a single revert (they had had many content disputes on the Kosovo vs Serbia articles before, which puts in question admin's neutrality). Another admin wanted to topic ban an established editor, without a prior warning, for a single edit (they had had content disputes on the Croatia vs Serbia articles). Another one protected his version of the article after running out of reverts. Even more blatant was the admin who threatened to block anyone who reverted a recent edit, which had failed to get consensus on the tp, and which was supported by admin's "friend" (admin's own words). Or like the guy who, almost immediately after becoming an admin, went to a content dispute and decided that a recent edit did not need consensus on the tp, and blocked an editor for restoring the long-term version (the editor, a newbie, quit editing on enwiki). IMO only an easy process of desysopping can deter such blatant misuse of admin authority. The number of active admins has gone down and it is a serious problem, but it is as much of a serious problem that the overall quality, at least in the Balkans topic area, has gone down as well. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ktrimi991, yeah, what you're describing is a whole nother kettle of fish, and if you decide to take any action on those issues, please let me know. I think you know me as a straight shooter, and I do believe that deep content involvement is not a good thing, and such matters should be dealt with in broader forums than obscure article talk pages or project pages. Then again, I think we both know how ANI discussions on Balkanized topics often go--they rapidly devolve into name calling and accusations of partisanship, and rarely offer solutions or even clarity. Well, you now have a tool to use if you want. I'm not happy with how the first two recalls went, though I also realize they were based on real and genuine concerns; I still think it's too blunt a tool. Perhaps Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Reworkshop will be productive. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those cases are one year or older, so now it is pointless for me to report them. If they were fresh cases with the recall process around, I would seriously consider reporting them to the wider community. I agree that the recall process is too blunt. My concern is that some people will misuse it to put pressure on good faith admins or to take "revenge" after a dispute. IMO 3 changes should be added to the current rules. An editor should not directly open a recall petition, but instead should complain about the admin at ANI/I. Then another editor with a certain level of experience, say with at least 10k edits and 5 years of editing, is allowed to open the recall petition. If the petition fails or the RfA is successful, then that editor who opened the petition is not allowed to open any petitions for a year. Some conditions like these are needed to serve as a filter and prevent such a potent tool from turning into a joke. How the community refines the rules will decide whether the recall process eventually serves its true purpose or not. Only time will tell. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&oldid=1258654863"