User talk:Drmies

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

2607:fb91:900::/40

Hi, Drmies. Special:Contributions/2607:fb91:900::/40 has too much collateral to be hard blocked. Soft blocking with {{TMOblock}}, like the previous block, is more appropriate. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the CU evidence, but it does look like a truly astonishingly wide range to be hard blocked, especially without talk page access. I also know of one apparently (as far as I can see) constructive and innocent editor who appears to be caught by this block. JBW (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • JBW, the CU evidence indicates an astonishing amount of socking/disruption (you should see the CU log), but you are welcome to adjust it. Having had it blocked for a few days may have saved us a bunch already. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you can see evidence that I can't, I certainly don't intend to quarrel with you. As I said, it looks like a wide range to be hard blocked, but I have had a good deal of experience over the years of blocks which look to me like one thing, but with fuller knowledge of the circumstances look like something else, so I don't intend to take any action without fuller knowledge; I merely raised my concerns with you to consider. JBW (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JBW, I'm not quarreling, and I appreciate your note and your experience. If you say the block is too harsh, it's too harsh--yes there's stuff underneath, but it's not life and death; it's just gross and irritating and we can handle it. Please adjust the block as you see fit: I trust your judgment. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JBW, they came right back with a handful of accounts. Just saying. Drmies (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that just confirms what I said above,about not taking action without further knowledge. I've restored your version of the block, and I'll leave it to you, since you know more about it than I do. JBW (talk) 07:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JBW, my "just saying" wasn't meant to be coy, like "gotcha"--sorry, maybe that was not the right choice of words. I really meant it quite literally. I'm a bit torn myself over this, and I hate feeling like I have to place hard blocks on long ranges. I can do with some guidance, and you and User:JJMC89 are offering it and I'm learning. I think you two have a lot more technical knowledge than I do, and whatever evidence comes from these glasses of mine shouldn't outweigh every other argument. Let's see if there's more complaints? And then reset the block they way you had it? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think you were trying to be coy, or saying something like "gotcha", I thought you were just letting me know what the situation was. I have no idea whether I have more "technical knowledge" than you or not, but I find situations like this difficult. I believe I am more ready than most administrators to impose substantial blocks on IP ranges when it seems to me that there's unlikely to be much damage to innocent editors, but it becomes a more difficult judgement to make when significant collateral damage looks likely. I don't think there's any "right" answer: it's a question of making a personal judgement. JBW (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I took a gander at this after being pointed here. As a rule of thumb, anything Tmobile aka 2607:fb90 or 2607:fb91 will always be too heavy to hard block. I see that the blocks on the /32s as a whole have expired or haven't been consistent. To prevent the disruptors from just going to another wiki and then coming back, and per our global stance on 2607:fb90/32, I have gone ahead and made 2607:fb91/32 a global block. I also reviewed the CU data, and there is not enough data to substantiate this as a hard block - falls very much below the threshold needed. I'm happy to provide details as to why in places where beans aren't as much of a concern. -- Amanda (she/her) 05:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that, Amanda--when I ran CU on the next sock. Drmies (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really parse the meaning behind that reply. If it's concern about a new sock already being created, then I'm happy to collab for ways we can shut that down, because new accounts aren't able to be created from that range now, which means something else is going on. Please feel free to reach out via email if that's a concern. -- Amanda (she/her) 12:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just a bit miffed that there's no stopping it. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Draft:John Paul (scientist)

You kindly restored an edited version of the Draft:John Paul (scientist) (removing copyright violations) I worked on it further, and the original editor User:Gcwcd then requested speedy deletion, (they had not actually edited that version of the draft) I should like to carry on working on it and move it to mainspace. Theroadislong (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"not pursue this any further"

Do we give out boomerangs at XRV? The OP isn't coming off in a good light. (he understated) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • You know if you're coming by here, you might as well congratulate me on the grammar of that sentence! Drmies (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was an immediate and straightforward NOT#3 close. I would have done it in the days before I noticed the close section says "uninvolved administrator". If that had been done when it should have been, if they then didn't drop it, they'd be in another venue where we didn't have to worry about whether a boomerang was appropriate. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the thing is that Bbb and I have exchanged recipes for chicken enchiladas via email, so I'm not uninvolved really. I mean, we're not really involved, it's not like we discussed steak or favorite books, but still. BTW, Bbb, Publix didn't have tomatillos, so I'll have to go shopping again tomorrow. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping regarding User:Saurav0804

Hi Drmies, I think the block should be indef here as I saw the sock notice in their userpage. I guess you might have missed it because of the existing block? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Right--I think some default setting reset that time, but I later discovered the socking so I just not turned it into a CU block. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Production of Ruby Gillman, Teenage Kraken

Hello, Drmies,

I'm not sure why you reverted the blanking of this draft by the page creator. We usually respect their wishes and see this as a signal that they would like the page deleted. Thanks for any additional information you can offer. Liz Read! Talk! 00:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because they had also pasted this into a sandbox and moved it into article space, and I deleted that--much easier than moving that back into draftspace, deleting the earlier one, merging the history. They did not want the page deleted. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of Chicago P.D. season 11

Hi, I noticed you reverted this edit and left a Level 2 vandalism warning template on the IP editor's talk page. Would a {{subst:uw-spoiler}} or {{subst:uw-delete1}} template be more appropriate in this case? The edit summary does have quite some emotion to it, but let me know what you think. Thanks! CpX41 (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi--I didn't know we had a "spoiler" warning; that's a bit too granular for me, and I think it's the first time in a decade that I saw something like this. The language of the level-1 warning is inappropriate in most cases, and this person wasn't experimenting or needing help: they were purposely fucking around. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that they are clearly WP:NOTHERE and likely it's a one-off case (especially since it's a IP editor) so either way, it's deal with. I just wanted to know your take on this since you are much more experienced that I am. Thanks, CpX41 (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User Imrubygillman

I think it's blindingly obvious this is a sock of Exteahans71. I've raised an SPI case. Barry Wom (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yep, Barry Wom--which is why I saw reason enough to check, and was surprised to find nothing. I mean, I could look again and see if maybe they used the same phone or laptop from a different place, as much as I could see, but I think that that account is going to have a limited lifespan anyway. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jack Chambers (choreographer)

Hello, Drmies,

According to Draftify, we normally don't draftify articles that are more than 3-6 months old and this article was created in 2011. Do you think there are COI issues that have lasted that long? Liz Read! Talk! 02:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The only substantial edits are COI edits, in my opinion. What would you do? Drmies (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for supporting the removal of unnecessary detail on the Foot fetishism article, I greatly appreciate it. I believe there is a similar amount of excess celebrity detail on the Midriff and Cultural views on the midriff and navel if you are interested in looking at those articles for excess detail to trim. Thank you! GnocchiFan (talk) 12:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oops, GnocchiFan, sorry, meant to get back to you--no problem! There was another one I tackled a while ago but I haven't been able to remember which one that was. Something about position--like squatting or something? Aha: Squatting position. Look at this version! Drmies (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holy shit that Cultural views on the midriff and navel is something else. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries - I know that editing these types of article is often a thankless task, but I appreciate you taking the time to get rid of all the unnecessary / borderline-obsessive celeb trivia and prurient content in these articles. Basically, thanks for wading through the sewage with me on this one, much appreciated. GnocchiFan (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bali sockfarm

Thanks for handling this incredibly prolific sockfarm. It feels like whack-a-mole. It's hard for Fylindfotberserk or me to catch up with filing new SPIs. Can we give you a short unbeaurocratic heads-up in case the next one flies into our respective radars? Austronesier (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure--though I'm not an expert. These six were easy enough, fortunately, but if I remember Spicy blocked a bunch of them a few weeks ago--maybe include them in your unbeaurocratic heads-up as well? BTW it was good old User:JarrahTree who pointed me that way. Take care, Drmies (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here we go (*sigh* ← citing JarrahTree's favorite exclamation): Alexandru Go Xai mas. Another day, another sock. -_- Austronesier (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • You got User:Tou Soembawa nih Bos2 for free. ;) Drmies (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sigh it seems to be a fertile source maybe it has good rainfall, something very different from where I come from - viz my talk page re our damned drought... JarrahTree 12:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Range blocks (definitely 112.215.208.0/20; 203.78.112.0/20 is already range-blocked) might also help. Can I ask for them also in SPI? Usually I only read "no comment about IPs" when I bring it up. –Austronesier (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yeah, you can ask for anything you like. Hell, just ask for someone to check the "administrator" box for you in the user rights management panel! (Think about it.) They say "no comment" because they can't comment, but that doesn't mean they don't look at it and perhaps act on it, you know? We're secretive and elusive, like secret agents working behind secret screens, pulling secret levers that cause things to fall thousands of miles away: the unknown superheroes of Wikipedia! Especially Ponyo! Drmies (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • Nice. Next time I'll check behind the curtains whenever I see "no comment" :) But as for that suggestion of yours: uhm, I'll have to think very hard about it. At least as hard as jarrah wood (no pun intended). –Austronesier (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I appreciate your action here. As someone who appreciated the user's anti-vandalism edits, I was seriously disappointed to discover their sockpuppetry. I have left them a message on their talk page explaining the standard offer to them and warning them about the consequences of block evasion, more specifically pointing them to WP:3X. Speaking from my experience patrolling recent changes alongside them, I'd really love to see them return in six months, but unfortunately, if this continues, I don't think that will be on the table.

Once again, thank you for stepping in here. JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • JeffSpaceman, I saw their impressive list of contributions, and I just don't get it. They know what to do, and yet they blatantly shot themselves in the foot. One of the reasons I reverted and blocked them quickly (not quickly enough for them to have a second shot) was that I figured they were only digging deeper. Thanks--who knows, maybe they'll see the light. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, it was definitely a good call to revert and block quickly, per WP:BANREVERT. In response to the socking, I left a message on the talk page of the master account giving them a very stern warning about block evasion, which can be viewed here. Once again, thank you for your diligence, it is much appreciated. JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • They've been low key shit stirring for months. I think they got bored that no one was reacting anymore and escalated. I originally took it to be bored kid, didn't realize they were an LTA but not surprised since I was engaged in connect the socks briefly. Le sigh. Thanks for the clean up Star Mississippi 01:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right--six months is too long to wait for some people, and they definitely made this last one to get attention. Sucks, cause that really resets the six-month clock. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • (talk page stalker) An alternative suggestion was made by AmandaNP in their global lock log, but rather tentatively and that doesn’t seem to fit the “low key shit stirring for months”, unless there were few to no good edits during the period in question.—Odysseus1479 02:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • given that this was the editor behind Lauren Boobert and likely other nonsense, I'm not sure it was compromised so much as an ongoing good/bad hand. BMX was nonsense, but I think the public alt was more attempted hat collecting because they saw other editors with that Star Mississippi 03:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh dear--I didn't know that. That's just gross. I wish someone would just smash the patriarchy. Drmies (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thanks for that link, Odysseus--I agree with you. Sometimes it's hard to tell, maybe, but after these edits, no, not for me. Also, there was no sign in the log (for the last three months) that suggested that. Drmies (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scounting camps, councils and such

I think local council pages fall under WP:BRANCH and they shouldn't have stand alone articles. What do you think? Merge/re-direct to something already in place or a should new target be created? Graywalls (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) i would think that the general notability criteria would apply. I would expect that few Districts and troops would meet that bar, but councils on the other hand, typically own the camps, and would be more likely to get coverage, but obviously that's a case by case deal... as most notability is... -- Aunva6talk - contribs 21:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are whole lot of local council articles and they're for the most part based on primary sources. Since it's an organization/group, they need to meet WP:NCORP. Most are not meeting this. Strictly local coverage only relevant to the area served by that council would fail WP:AUD Graywalls (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
user:aunva6, I've been through a couple of discussions and AfDs, and usually the counterargument was "Boy Scouts are big and important so they should be considered notable". That shouldn't hold up, but it has. I remember an AfD a few years ago on a council, in Florida perhaps, loaded with content based on primary sources--and while one might expect coverage pertaining to land ownership and zoning and all that, there was nothing there, not even that, and I searched. The best coverage was about individual events, some opening or celebration, and I think there was some news on a storm--just not enough per NCORP, for instance, but the nay-sayers typically really don't complain about a lack of secondary sourcing in these articles. Drmies (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THIS

is how we know them.😜 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 62

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 62, March – April 2024

  • IEEE and Haaretz now available
  • Let's Connect Clinics about The Wikipedia Library
  • Spotlight and Wikipedia Library tips

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Synthese

Hi, you're certainly better acquainted with philosophy than me (even though I have Russell's "History of Western Philosophy" currently on my nightstand - I shit you not, at least a year :-). Could you have a look at this article and it's recent history and tell me whether I really am wrong about this? --Randykitty (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm I'm reading a novel about Kant, almost done! And in German! I reverted--I believe you are correct. I could say more, but I gotta go to class; I'll try to weigh in on the talk page later today or tomorrow. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&oldid=1220430260"