The Rambling Man

[CrowsNest]

Slam dunk violation of his topic ban here.....

This is a recycled hook to balance the main page but I wonder if it previously ran as the "quirky" hook, allowing some ... "latitude" for such egg violations? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

......posted in the DYK section of the official ERROR reporting system (i.e. not his unofficial protest one)

The restriction....

The Rambling Man is topic banned from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, the Did You Know? process. This topic ban does not apply to User:The Rambling Man/ERRORS and its talk page or to articles linked from DYK hooks or captions (these may be at any stage of the DYK process).

What will be the excuse this time?

[CrowsNest]

TRM is an appalling human being.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=904701493#Just_a_warning

Hilarious that they're back to their usual activities and being protected by a scuzzball Administrator in the usual way, hours after the WMF Board talked about en.wiki's problems attracting a more diverse used base, and solving its toxic user problem.

TRM is toxic and proud of it.

[CrowsNest]

Can people just quit telling this lie already?

Given the number of people who are desperate for TRM to make any transgression so they can pounce on him any problems will be reported PDQ and sanction will be swift. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

He breaches his sanctions frequently, so either nobody cares, or they do but something is persuading them not to report it. My guess would be the toxic culture of Wikipedia, where reporting popular editors is a good deed that always goes thoroughly punished, but I'm open to alternate explanations. Sun spots maybe?

[CrowsNest]

Seriously, if there is an argument at all for having paid people on ArbCom, it is this bullshit even being by allowed to be said in defence of a toxic user, BY AN ADMINISTRATOR.....

...If anyone does not want to interact with TRM they don't have to - they can just choose not to comment on those reviews where TRM's involvement has been solicited. ...Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Ordinary editors have pointed out what is wrong with this moronic comment, which goes directly against policy.

Where are the Arbitrators? Basic Administrator competence is their department, right?