The Rambling Man's bizarre fixation on SandyGeorgia and it's even more bizarre end

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats blecch!
Post Reply
User avatar
Boink Boink
Sucks Fan
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2023 8:50 pm
Been thanked: 85 times

The Rambling Man's bizarre fixation on SandyGeorgia and it's even more bizarre end

Post by Boink Boink » Wed May 31, 2023 3:15 am

Sadly it appears we will be denied an ArbCom case to examine exactly why The Rambling Man seems to have a deeply held but meticulously unexplained hatred of Sandy Georgia for having "driven me off the project" that has lasted eighteen months.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... ds_to_stop

After this post by Amakuru...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1157539888

The Rambling Man did this.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1157539888

......citing his friend, "per Amakuru".

As anyone can see, being The Rambling Man's friend has only made Amakuru look like a bit of an idiot. Entirely blanking his user page is a typically childish response.

There is nothing in any of this that suggests The Rambling Man won't restore the offending content to his talk page at a later date, or resume his random slagging of Sandy to other users.

Bizarrely, Sandy accepts this blanking as the resolution she so clearly craves.

I was frankly pretty amused to see Sandy seemingly care so much about unexplained aspersions being retained against their targets wishes, and being unable to drop it when others are telling you that assholes gonna be assholes so just ignore it, when in the recent Serial versus Mzajac issue I wrote up here at length, she ended that episode making it quite clear that such things are unimportant.

Similarly, in this eposode, she cares very little about the prospect that The Rambling Man's stellar contributions may have been lost to Wikipedia forever. And yet in the Serial case, the apparent loss to Wikipedia of a fine editor was seemingly all she cares about.

I guess on Wikipedia things look very different depending on whether you are the victim, or a friend and enabler of the aggressor....

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: The Rambling Man's bizarre fixation on SandyGeorgia and it's even more bizarre end

Post by wexter » Wed May 31, 2023 3:44 am

I used Chatgpt to boil the gibberish laced infighting down to three simple paragraphs.
The passage you provided is a conversation between multiple users on a Wikipedia talk page. The users are discussing a situation involving someone referred to as TRM, who seems to have caused some issues and conflicts with other users, particularly with SandyGeorgia. SandyGeorgia expresses frustration at being criticized and attacked by TRM without any clear reason or opportunity to respond. Other users speculate on possible reasons for TRM's behavior and express their support for SandyGeorgia. There are also mentions of past conflicts and interactions with TRM.

In simpler terms, the users are discussing a problem caused by TRM on Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia is upset because TRM has been attacking and criticizing her without any apparent reason. Other users sympathize with SandyGeorgia and try to understand the situation. They mention past conflicts with TRM and express their support for SandyGeorgia.

Overall, the conversation revolves around the need for TRM's behavior to stop and for the conflicts to be resolved. SandyGeorgia and other users hope that TRM will move on and stop causing trouble.

Regenerate response
Its standard Wikipedia insanity...
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: The Rambling Man's bizarre fixation on SandyGeorgia and it's even more bizarre end

Post by ericbarbour » Wed May 31, 2023 4:04 am

Boink Boink wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 3:15 am
Similarly, in this eposode, she cares very little about the prospect that The Rambling Man's stellar contributions may have been lost to Wikipedia forever.
lol

I could tell you some amazing things about SandyGeorgia. But still haven't discovered her real identity. If she really hates someone on WP she will go to berserk lengths to get rid of them.

User avatar
Boink Boink
Sucks Fan
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2023 8:50 pm
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: The Rambling Man's bizarre fixation on SandyGeorgia and it's even more bizarre end

Post by Boink Boink » Wed May 31, 2023 9:04 am

wexter wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 3:44 am
I used Chatgpt to boil the gibberish laced infighting down to three simple paragraphs.
I'm not too suse how to feel about the AI failing to identify one very significant component of the debate, namely the large numbers of people who were expressing support for TRM. Still a significant minority, but apparently enough to prevent a site ban. Even then I am not so sure, the site ban proposal was running at 8-14 against when the proposer withdrew it, but at least half of those 14 weren't even trying to make a policy backed argument. A consensus likely exists in the remainder on the simple principle that you don't keep trying to do what has already failed repeatedly in the past and seems to only make the user even more bitter and less inclined to contribute.

It is categorically not policy for example to try to deal with a user who has already been to ArbCom multiple times and been lucky to avoid a site ban there in favour of (ultimately useless) lesser sanctions, to pretend time limited three month blocks will achieve anything. Especially not for this user, who has repeatedly demonstrated that his preferred approach to time limited sanctions, is simply wait them out and resume right where they left off upon their return (being an abrasive dick).

Being a Vested Contributor, he is immune to the ratchet mechanism of escalating blocks until he reaches indefinite and has no choice but to either take responsibility for his own actions or walk away from Wikipedia. There is always some asshole of an Administrator out there prepared to nullify it. Take Black Kite, for example. He would overturn an indefinite block of The Rambling Man in a heartbeat unless it was for a post that was actually unambiguously illegal (now ironic then that a lot of what TRM says on Wikipedia qualifies as actual prohibited Hate Speech under UK law and people we quite right to ask the question, what if he was saying this shit about Muslims?).

Black Kite is a member of Wikipediocracy, unsurprisingly. They do attract the very worst of Wikipedia insiders, don't they? The real scum.

-----

It perhaps confuses the technology that due to the highly toxic nature of Wikipedia, support for a Vested Contributor actually often reads like a condemnation, if you aren't aware of the rules of the game. Namely, try your level best to blame anyone else or indeed the cruel universe, for the inexcusable failings of a man who definitely knows what they are doing is unacceptable and just doesn't give a shit (since where's the catharsis in being a good person?). Someone hell bent on contributing to Wikipedia in the way they want, and fuck the rules, for whatever fucked up undiagnosed mental health reason (abused as a child?), and is basically daring anyone else to stop him.
TRM is a rude fellow, and always has been, but fwiw (and unlike the rest of it) "Americans (most of whom have never left their country)" is factually correct isn't it? Plus that's on his user page, where a good deal more latitude is normally allowed. Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
So, regardless of how abrasive someone’s comments from time to time are, if they don’t violate WP:NPA, we shouldn’t clamp down on editors and should weigh their (mis)behaviour against their contributions.
. I can hardly blame him for being bitter when people have treated his hard work on these articles with such contempt
No action necessary IMHO. Look, I'll be the first to admit that TRM's comments cause me to cringe at times, but the matter posted here hardly seems like the most shining example of that.
I don't see why Wikipedia should protect people from hearing opinions they don't like such as TRM's additional brief comment about Americans opposing the item. .... Rather than be offended, people should dwell on the substance of the issue raised. Ignoring an unwelcome opinion should be easy and would be much more intellectually healthy than rejecting the messenger. Johnuniq (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - His comment might have been a little harsh, but it's not worthy of a topic ban. And while editors don't have to agree with, or support, TRM's opinion, it certainly should be tolerated in a diverse community. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - Blunt and straight to the point. Mass shootings and school shootings are an everyday thing in the US - not so much anywhere else!. Snowflakes being snowflakes as per. –Davey2010Talk 13:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose The incivility or the political aspects by TRM are far far underwhelming compared to the majority of what we let slide across the project. This seems like people who have not been on the project that long taking offense at something that really isn't an issue, unless we start to do apply the same standard across the board. TRM is not very active at ITN much any more, and his incivility caused by a political statement is tame. --Masem (t) 03:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't think the mild rudeness is ban-worthy. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 04:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
TRM occasionally posts something uncivil, but this does not call for a TBAN (and the proposal of a SBAN is ludicrous). .... we could theoretically bring someone to ANI over this every other month. Anarchyte (talk) 07:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose One would have thought that editors who spend most of their lives dodging hails of bullets and ensuring their kids know how to best evade a crazed shooter would be less likely to be offended by a few words than the rest of us snowflakes. Black Kite (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I've performed a brief census of the most recent 50 edits of TRM and checked for civility issues, as well as the types of content. It seems to me that 14% of TRM's most recent edits have contained incivility. Only 8% of their edits at ITN are uncivil, while 25% of their talk page posts have had some incivility. Despite mass shootings and Americans being the impetus for this ANI, only 6% of his comments on mass shootings and 10% of his comments on Americans appear to violate WP:CIVIL.
Oppose. I fully agree that TRM's tone is abrasive at times..... But the complaint about ITN in particular seems to be a huge storm in a teacup. ....TRM is far from the most hostile person there.....
Oppose If there’s a consensus that the editor mistreats other editors, then the farthest we should go is administer a ban from editing talk pages so that the editor cannot interact with others. I don’t see a reason why a prolific editor with no history of disruptive editing in the main namespace should be prevented to edit articles
Oppose, while the project would benefit from TRM taking a step back from dealing with Americans
Oppose - hugely over the top, not the way we (first) deal with civility issues. There might be a case for a more localised topic ban, but a full site ban is ridiculous. GiantSnowman 09:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Reluctant oppose Terrible, out of line behavior, bad rationales given for it, and apparently not contributing but a site ban is overkill. Some alternate is needed. Maybe something like a 3 month block to see if that wakes them up and escalate to a site ban later if that fails. North8000 (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Reluctant oppose per North8000. Would prefer a 3-month block. starship.paint (exalt) 14:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose A complete overreaction. We have an editor who has lost his enthusiasm for editing Wikipedia but still shows up occasionally at ITN to state, in a somewhat inflammatory way, his disgust with the lack of gun control in the US. That's no way near worthy of a site ban. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Opppse. I would support a temporary site ban for 3 months, though, as I agree his overall contributions appear to have been a net negative on the project in the past 3-4 months. sanctions like this should be preventative, and serve to show TRM how his behavior is considered inappropriate by the community. I don't think an indef would serve this function, and seems more punitive in motivation. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
When even your own fan club thinks you are nothing but a bitter abrasive terminally rude xenophobe who has clearly lost interest in the parts of the project where you were supposedly once a long time ago a minimally tolerable person but now resemble nothing more than a bored troll, someone who to get back on the straight and narrow and enthused for Wikipedia again, or what passed for it in your long history of being incapable of following all the rules everywhere at all times, either needs a 3 month cool down (mental health treatment?) block or some sort of special management approach to keep you away from your apparent triggers (Americans, people who you disagree with, clouds, loud noises, kids on your lawn), then it is probably time you just killed yourself.

When your own fan club wants ABSOLUTELY NO PART of discussing why it is that you, a classic toxic male stereotype, an angry, bitter, twisted, incapable of expressing his feelings In a constructive fashion, making everyone else suffer alongside your supposedly not a snowflake but fragile as fuck candy ass, have apparently taken to blaming one individual woman for your (not really gone anywhere) departure from Wikipedia, for reasons that we are clearly meant to assume are real, but which you refuse to share with anyone because you're such a coward, then you need to double kill yourself, with a cherry on top. And have a nice day too.

How ironic that being a Brit, TRM doesn't have ready access to a gun. And based on his Wikipedia edits, he's clearly too much of a coward to jump off a bridge or lie down infront of a train.

This is why Wikipedia lets contributors hide their real identities. If the truth of what this miserable excuse of a human being came out, where at best he spends his days being a bitter old man on an internet project he hates but cannot leave of his own free will, exercising the free speech rights he does not have to rage against a cause that would thoroughly reject him if he dared to take it into the real world (I am a Brit and think this manchild is an absolute embarrassment who is more likely to get a damn good kicking rather than a free pint if he ever stepped foot in a proper British pub), he would lose what few friends he has left. If he has any left at all. His parents are dead, for sure. Killed themselves out of shame no doubt.

User avatar
Bbb23sucks
Sucker
Posts: 1337
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:08 am
Location: The Astral Plane
Has thanked: 1255 times
Been thanked: 263 times

Re: The Rambling Man's bizarre fixation on SandyGeorgia and it's even more bizarre end

Post by Bbb23sucks » Wed May 31, 2023 9:48 am

Boink Boink wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 9:04 am
wexter wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 3:44 am
I used Chatgpt to boil the gibberish laced infighting down to three simple paragraphs.
I'm not too suse how to feel about the AI failing to identify one very significant component of the debate, namely the large numbers of people who were expressing support for TRM. Still a significant minority, but apparently enough to prevent a site ban. Even then I am not so sure, the site ban proposal was running at 8-14 against when the proposer withdrew it, but at least half of those 14 weren't even trying to make a policy backed argument. A consensus likely exists in the remainder on the simple principle that you don't keep trying to do what has already failed repeatedly in the past and seems to only make the user even more bitter and less inclined to contribute.

It is categorically not policy for example to try to deal with a user who has already been to ArbCom multiple times and been lucky to avoid a site ban there in favour of (ultimately useless) lesser sanctions, to pretend time limited three month blocks will achieve anything. Especially not for this user, who has repeatedly demonstrated that his preferred approach to time limited sanctions, is simply wait them out and resume right where they left off upon their return (being an abrasive dick).

Being a Vested Contributor, he is immune to the ratchet mechanism of escalating blocks until he reaches indefinite and has no choice but to either take responsibility for his own actions or walk away from Wikipedia. There is always some asshole of an Administrator out there prepared to nullify it. Take Black Kite, for example. He would overturn an indefinite block of The Rambling Man in a heartbeat unless it was for a post that was actually unambiguously illegal (now ironic then that a lot of what TRM says on Wikipedia qualifies as actual prohibited Hate Speech under UK law and people we quite right to ask the question, what if he was saying this shit about Muslims?).

Black Kite is a member of Wikipediocracy, unsurprisingly. They do attract the very worst of Wikipedia insiders, don't they? The real scum.

-----

It perhaps confuses the technology that due to the highly toxic nature of Wikipedia, support for a Vested Contributor actually often reads like a condemnation, if you aren't aware of the rules of the game. Namely, try your level best to blame anyone else or indeed the cruel universe, for the inexcusable failings of a man who definitely knows what they are doing is unacceptable and just doesn't give a shit (since where's the catharsis in being a good person?). Someone hell bent on contributing to Wikipedia in the way they want, and fuck the rules, for whatever fucked up undiagnosed mental health reason (abused as a child?), and is basically daring anyone else to stop him.
TRM is a rude fellow, and always has been, but fwiw (and unlike the rest of it) "Americans (most of whom have never left their country)" is factually correct isn't it? Plus that's on his user page, where a good deal more latitude is normally allowed. Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
So, regardless of how abrasive someone’s comments from time to time are, if they don’t violate WP:NPA, we shouldn’t clamp down on editors and should weigh their (mis)behaviour against their contributions.
. I can hardly blame him for being bitter when people have treated his hard work on these articles with such contempt
No action necessary IMHO. Look, I'll be the first to admit that TRM's comments cause me to cringe at times, but the matter posted here hardly seems like the most shining example of that.
I don't see why Wikipedia should protect people from hearing opinions they don't like such as TRM's additional brief comment about Americans opposing the item. .... Rather than be offended, people should dwell on the substance of the issue raised. Ignoring an unwelcome opinion should be easy and would be much more intellectually healthy than rejecting the messenger. Johnuniq (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - His comment might have been a little harsh, but it's not worthy of a topic ban. And while editors don't have to agree with, or support, TRM's opinion, it certainly should be tolerated in a diverse community. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - Blunt and straight to the point. Mass shootings and school shootings are an everyday thing in the US - not so much anywhere else!. Snowflakes being snowflakes as per. –Davey2010Talk 13:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose The incivility or the political aspects by TRM are far far underwhelming compared to the majority of what we let slide across the project. This seems like people who have not been on the project that long taking offense at something that really isn't an issue, unless we start to do apply the same standard across the board. TRM is not very active at ITN much any more, and his incivility caused by a political statement is tame. --Masem (t) 03:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't think the mild rudeness is ban-worthy. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 04:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
TRM occasionally posts something uncivil, but this does not call for a TBAN (and the proposal of a SBAN is ludicrous). .... we could theoretically bring someone to ANI over this every other month. Anarchyte (talk) 07:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose One would have thought that editors who spend most of their lives dodging hails of bullets and ensuring their kids know how to best evade a crazed shooter would be less likely to be offended by a few words than the rest of us snowflakes. Black Kite (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I've performed a brief census of the most recent 50 edits of TRM and checked for civility issues, as well as the types of content. It seems to me that 14% of TRM's most recent edits have contained incivility. Only 8% of their edits at ITN are uncivil, while 25% of their talk page posts have had some incivility. Despite mass shootings and Americans being the impetus for this ANI, only 6% of his comments on mass shootings and 10% of his comments on Americans appear to violate WP:CIVIL.
Oppose. I fully agree that TRM's tone is abrasive at times..... But the complaint about ITN in particular seems to be a huge storm in a teacup. ....TRM is far from the most hostile person there.....
Oppose If there’s a consensus that the editor mistreats other editors, then the farthest we should go is administer a ban from editing talk pages so that the editor cannot interact with others. I don’t see a reason why a prolific editor with no history of disruptive editing in the main namespace should be prevented to edit articles
Oppose, while the project would benefit from TRM taking a step back from dealing with Americans
Oppose - hugely over the top, not the way we (first) deal with civility issues. There might be a case for a more localised topic ban, but a full site ban is ridiculous. GiantSnowman 09:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Reluctant oppose Terrible, out of line behavior, bad rationales given for it, and apparently not contributing but a site ban is overkill. Some alternate is needed. Maybe something like a 3 month block to see if that wakes them up and escalate to a site ban later if that fails. North8000 (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Reluctant oppose per North8000. Would prefer a 3-month block. starship.paint (exalt) 14:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose A complete overreaction. We have an editor who has lost his enthusiasm for editing Wikipedia but still shows up occasionally at ITN to state, in a somewhat inflammatory way, his disgust with the lack of gun control in the US. That's no way near worthy of a site ban. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Opppse. I would support a temporary site ban for 3 months, though, as I agree his overall contributions appear to have been a net negative on the project in the past 3-4 months. sanctions like this should be preventative, and serve to show TRM how his behavior is considered inappropriate by the community. I don't think an indef would serve this function, and seems more punitive in motivation. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
When even your own fan club thinks you are nothing but a bitter abrasive terminally rude xenophobe who has clearly lost interest in the parts of the project where you were supposedly once a long time ago a minimally tolerable person but now resemble nothing more than a bored troll, someone who to get back on the straight and narrow and enthused for Wikipedia again, or what passed for it in your long history of being incapable of following all the rules everywhere at all times, either needs a 3 month cool down (mental health treatment?) block or some sort of special management approach to keep you away from your apparent triggers (Americans, people who you disagree with, clouds, loud noises, kids on your lawn), then it is probably time you just killed yourself.

When your own fan club wants ABSOLUTELY NO PART of discussing why it is that you, a classic toxic male stereotype, an angry, bitter, twisted, incapable of expressing his feelings In a constructive fashion, making everyone else suffer alongside your supposedly not a snowflake but fragile as fuck candy ass, have apparently taken to blaming one individual woman for your (not really gone anywhere) departure from Wikipedia, for reasons that we are clearly meant to assume are real, but which you refuse to share with anyone because you're such a coward, then you need to double kill yourself, with a cherry on top. And have a nice day too.

How ironic that being a Brit, TRM doesn't have ready access to a gun. And based on his Wikipedia edits, he's clearly too much of a coward to jump off a bridge or lie down infront of a train.

This is why Wikipedia lets contributors hide their real identities. If the truth of what this miserable excuse of a human being came out, where at best he spends his days being a bitter old man on an internet project he hates but cannot leave of his own free will, exercising the free speech rights he does not have to rage against a cause that would thoroughly reject him if he dared to take it into the real world (I am a Brit and think this manchild is an absolute embarrassment who is more likely to get a damn good kicking rather than a free pint if he ever stepped foot in a proper British pub), he would lose what few friends he has left. If he has any left at all. His parents are dead, for sure. Killed themselves out of shame no doubt.
Thanks, but can you please provide a good summary if ChatGPT can't? I know you put in a lot of effort in these posts researching, analyzing, writing, etc. and I applaud that. But, please kindly understand that not everyone has the time or patience to pages upon pages of Wikipedia drama. Since you already spend so much effort writing these posts, surely it can't take that much more to provide a short summary? Right?
"Globally banned" since September 5, 2023 for exposing harassment.

Email: wikipediasucks@disroot.org

Petition to ban Bbb23Wikipedia AlternativeDonate to help French strikers

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: The Rambling Man's bizarre fixation on SandyGeorgia and it's even more bizarre end

Post by wexter » Wed May 31, 2023 12:59 pm

"I'm not too sure how to feel about the AI failing to identify one very significant component of the debate, namely the large numbers of people who were expressing support for TRM. Still a significant minority, but apparently enough to prevent a site ban." Boink Boink
The AI does not know about Wikipedia Rule Number 3 as proclaimed by George Orwell and the pen of pigs who govern the website

All Wikipedia editors/admins are equal, but some Wikipedia editors/admins are more equal than others.

What better example than Piotrus! so with TRM it is business as usual.. All the insane bantering and insane process is dirty laundry that is kept in the closet. The crickets in the "free press" are happy to oblige.. they are too scared of the pigs you see.

---

PS the rambling man got a rambling topic ban of some kind.. the "sanction " is so poorly written and speeled it is indecipherable gibberish
There is a consensus to topic-ban The Rambling Man from WP:ITN. A sizable majority of editors supported santions, either a topic-ban or a broader siteban, for reasons of persistent incivility, with the site-ban option falling short of consensus in a sub-thread. A minority of editors opposed sanctions, primarily for the reason that the set of comments precipitating this report were not that bad in their view. While there was some disagreement as to whether the most recent derogatory comments regarding the US were "that bad", and whether disparaging the US, as a (the?) world superpower should be considered "punching up", the consensus view is that these comments comprise a long and consistent pattern, and that TRM's behavior at ITN is now a net-negative despite TRM's prior contributions to articles. In principle, this could be actioned with a partial-block from the pages in question, but given that this was not discussed in this thread, and that this could produce ambiguity as to the typical "broadly construed" tban provisions prohibiting engagement with the topic on other pages as well, I will be logging it as a regular commuity topic-ban. signed, Rosguill talk 15:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

Post Reply