The Rambling Man

[CrowsNest]

Took a while, but TRM has finally been reported to AE.

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

The violations are pretty blatant. A block should follow, although why anyone bothers when it will only be for 48 hours, by rule of the Committee, is beyond me. Sanderson gets it.....

I question whether a 48 hour block would accomplish anything or whether we need to return this to ARCA. Sandstein 08:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

.....which will infuriate TRM's enablers.

I have no sympathy for this idea that just because he was in an argument with Drmies, and if you sort of look at it generously, his nasty commentary and aggressive acts weren't wholly divorced from the content dispute, he somehow gets a free pass for the obligatory tacking on of the violations.

If they want people to stop getting into arguments with Drmies, the proper approach would be to find some way to stop Drmies being such an argumentative and arrogant prick. If they investigated, the way Drmies hacked at this article, triggering TRM's ire, and also how Drmies responded to being reverted, really aren't out of the ordinary for that sack of shit. TRM is probably only angry because the likes of Drmies are still allowed to be Administrators while he is seen as unsuitable, and is using this trivial content spat as a proxy for expressing that frustration.

The relevant issue here isn't the fact Drmies turned up to fuck with TRM, it is that TRM would have reacted this same way, had anyone turned up. He has absolutely no intention of abiding by the restriction, and will of course seize on any and all opportunities to violate it, such as when he can be sure people will let him off because he was provoked into it, or that he was at least trying not to be a complete and total dick.

If Alex Shih has a problem with how Drmies does things, and in his own brave way he seems sure Drmies has done wrong here, he knows the proper procedure. It can be run in parallel with TRM justifiably being subjected to what he is now due.

[Dysklyver]

Alex Shih meanwhile is running for Steward, so he will do whatever he thinks is going to be most popular with the most people.

[CrowsNest]

Alex Shih meanwhile is running for Steward, so he will do whatever he thinks is going to be most popular with the most people.

I doubt it. He is travelling a very different path to someone seeking a responsible office.

[CrowsNest]

Wtf?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... on=history

2009 UEFA Champions League Final‎‎

Please stop the edit warring on 2009 UEFA Champions League Final‎‎, continuing to revert the edits is not constructive and has led nowhere. Please solve the disagreement on the talk page/another forum instead, there is no need for this to escalate any further. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, the version with consensus is now in place, that’s fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Unbelievable.

[CrowsNest]

It's been unusually busy at AE, and yet nobody but Alex Shih seems to want to fight TRM's corner. And for those not paying attention, Alex won't be doing that to benefit TRM or even Wikipedia, but rather to harm or otherwise embarrass his former colleagues. Not even brownnose Dweller seems capable of defending him, and he is around.

[CrowsNest]

Well, a month ago the Arbitrators decided the way forward was to create an elaborate bureaucracy just to handle the special flower that is The Rambling Man, a bizarre mix of bringing some, but not all aspects of his sanction enforcement under their direct control.

It is unsurprising therefore, that the very first opportunity for the community to sanction him, the community essentially ignores it. It is clear they don't want the hassle of even placing a short block for unambiguous breaches, which was a power left in their hands. It is clear they want ArbCom to deal with all things TRM, even though it leads us to the point where quite possibly, for this one seriously recalcitrant user, the esteemed 13 person Committee is relegated to what is effectively, grunt work.

A 13 person committee will now be called on to decided the following....

1. Did he unambiguously violate his restrictions?
2. Has he had adequate warning what would happen if he did so?
3. Is there any conceivable way to look at things that absolves him of responsibility?

The answers are clearly yes, yes and no. The only people who disagree, are naturally The Rambling Man himself, and Dweller, who does a very good impression of TRM's official rectum cleaner. Even he can't come up with anything to say other than it was a case of entrapment.

All this elaborate beurocracy has achieved, is give The Rambling Man even more opportunity to violate his restrictions, in blatant and obvious ways. At AE, he said of the reporter that his report "demonstrates a serious lack of ability of the posting admin to go through standard approaches to content dispute and a really savage need to get me blocked." Conveniently ignoring that the standard approach for TRM is to file at AE, as mandated by the bureaucracy. Having moved to ARCA (again because bureaucracy), he simply said of the filer "I suppose if Sandstein keeps this up, eventually the result he is searching for will be delivered, infinite monkeys and infinite typewriters and all that." Both are clear and blatant violations of his prohibition against speculating on people's motives of reflecting on their competence. This on top of the multiple violations named as the basis for the AE report.

Despite all this beuroceacy, it seems all options are still on the table as far as what response occurs, if the Committee even bothers to turn out in full to hear the particulars. You would not be surprised if all that happened is the imposition of a 48 your block, as said grunt work. Nor would you be surprised if he gets a site ban, since there is no conceivable topic ban that covers the latest breach (other than do not talk to anyone for any reason). You would not even really be surprised if he was let off Scot free, or if the entire bureaucracy is dismantled as unworkable and the community is once again saddled with the burden of deciding what to do with him on a case by case basis.

What a mess. What is really clear, as it has been from day one, is that TRM has not one shred of genuine desire to do what he can to get back into the community's good books. He is done, but he wants a martyr's end. It is therefore of some comfort that his ultimate demise, if not now then some time this year, will be decided in a quiet committee room, noticed by virtually nobody, and cared about by even less. A fitting end for such a massive bell end.

It should be recalled, given how he keeps wanting to complain about the absurdity of his sanctions, that TRM himself claimed that when he came back earlier this month, he would be filing his own ARCA to have this supposedly untenable situation remedied. That of course didn't happen, because TRM never follows through in his empty threats. More proof that all he is interested in, is martyrdom. He just lacks the guts to embark on a full frontal charge against the enemy.

[CrowsNest]

Not a single Arbitrator has even commented yet, and despite only a handful of commentators, we have already had all the usual responses.....

1. LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE (you are all so mean to him)
2. Why haven't we banned this dick yet?
3. This shit is insanse, just ban him if you have no better ideas
4. LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE (Sandstein is the one you want!)
5. This is silly, just block him for 48 hours (offence is already 4 days in the past!)
6. He's not learning, block him for a month

Literal Groundhog Day. Like nothing was ever said by Arbitrators at ARCA last time around that directly relates to these diverse views, ruling some as relevant, some as irrelevant.

And for all their stated disapproval of WP:ASPERSIONS, this must be at least the fiftieth time assorted Wikipedia Administrators have insinuated their supposed colleague Sandstein is biased or worse, conducting a "vendetta", without properly reporting the concern in an appropriate location. They are never blocked, despite the repeated and deliberate nature of the offence. Never.

The irony is, the people complaining the loudest that this is just a silly waste of time of a grand conspiracy, are the ones whose only bright idea is to do nothing, as if somehow the problem they're whining about, will magically go away.

Let's not forget, the community is only partly to blame, much of this farce reaching this stage is squarely down to the Arbitrators comical indecision and general reluctance to do their fucking job, specifically Opabina Regalis.

[CrowsNest]

I spoke too soon, one Arbitrator has now commented....

True, a rule of No Consensus For 48 Hours was recently adopted; this is its first test. Clearly, the rule was designed for stalemate among enforcing administrators. Leading up to the rule's adoption, several enforcement requests had been prevented from being actioned because administrators were stopping by to oppose the action. However, in this request the administrators agreed that action was necessary, but Sandstein wished to impose a harsher sanction than the standard one. I do not think this is how the new rule should be used. Nevertheless, here we are. I would resolve the escalated request for enforcement with a 48 hour block.

We should not depart from the standard outcome in any way here, because I actually think the very best thing is for The Rambling Man to learn that breaches of the remedy will now be enforced. Enforcing them excessively, or not at all, would be unwise. I plan, after a period for further comment, to propose a motion for a 48 hour enforcing block.

It troubles me that The Rambling Man does not contest they breached the remedy; was it intentional? Politics should not be played on Wikipedia. But again, it seems to me that the best response to such behaviour is to stoically apply the very clear rules that were set out late last year. AGK ■ 18:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, the interpretive comments here cannot and would not be predicted by an Administrator trying to enforce this sanction.

As for whether it was intentional, this seems to settle that.....

ARCA notification

......

Thanks, Sandstein 11:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Shambolic. Couldn't even implement the amendment once. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I read that as TRM having fully expected a 48 hour block as some sort of standard punishment, and therefore deliberately choosing to violate it for the short term thrill of telling Drmies exactly what he felt, rather than heeding the part of the sanction which tells him what to do if he feels tempted to be a dick.

TRM does learn, he just learns the wrong things, namely how to game the system. Not a lot of point in reinforcing that mindset.

[CrowsNest]

What. The. Fuck.

We have almost unanimous agreement on two things here:

1. TRM violated his restriction
2. TRM was baited into violating his restriction.

We don't have agreement on whether a sanction for 1 is appropriate in the light of 2.

I think the best way to resolve this would be for everyone who, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, baited any user into violating a restriction imposed on them would automatically get the sanction instead of the user with the sanction - in this case that would be a 48 hour block. That would quickly put an end to much of the sniping around TRM (and others in unrelated disputes). Thryduulf (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact 2. is an obviously false representation of the comments so far, do you SERIOUSLY BELIEVE anyone is about to block Drmies for 48 hours, either at all, let alone as some kind of wierd block transfer?

Pigs will fly before Drmies is blocked for his part in this farce, and while that level of immunity from basic standards is a source of many problems on Wikipedia, it most certainly doesn't cause the issues that surround TRM.

[CrowsNest]

Things would go much easier on Wikipedia if they were capable of seeing things in the round. The other drama with TRM at its centre has of course also escalated up the chain......

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=881346026#User:Colonies_Chris_reported_by_User:S.A._Julio_(Result:_)

As someone has already said at this ARCA, there are countless Administrators who happily block novice editors who, after the mandated warnings, continue to display such a brazen contempt for the principles of Wikipedia. Not just through the lame edit warring, but the way he deliberately ignores his opponent, and worse, acts like he is the one abiding by the rules, practically blowing raspberries, like a little kid. Such a clear example of two faced gamification definitely earns lesser beings a permanent disinvite from Club Wikipedia from hardass Administrators.