Wikipedia Sucks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1188522895

Serial asshole and all round Unblockable Beyond My Ken has seemingly hit rock bottom, in a variety of weird and wonderful ways.

An AN/I report about yet another episode of assholery was going as per the usual script, but something was off. There was talk of sheer exasperation.....

I can't believe we are still seeing these same old complaints about BMK. This is a perennial problem going back many many years and countless people have tried getting through to him. Status quo stonewalling is an extremely maddening disruptive behavior to have to deal with and I don't know why he continues to do it. Absolutely exhausting. ~Swarm~ {sting} 22:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps it was that, or perhaps it was the sheer brass balls of a man ignoring a complaint about stonewalling. You can barely blame BMK for doing it, It totally works usually....

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2843

Or perhaps it was the sheer cheek of being told by an Administrator to be glad that a man with BMK's "background" had actually gone pretty easy on his foes this time around.

To give you some idea of what BMK going easy looks like, well, after ignoring a report about his stonewalling for almost a day (making sure to perform a trivial edit in the morning to let people know for sure he was around but had no intention of chiming in), he then arrived, but simply to play the victim and state his intention to keep stonewalling....

Given the OP's comments on my talk page, I don't think it's particularly unreasonable of me to assume that their motivations are less than pure, a conclusion that is supported by their comments on the article talk page, which were addressed not to finding a consensus, but to attacking 'me. The OP has made no real effort whatsoever, via 3O for instance or starting an RfC, to start a true consensus discussion. Once they have made that effort, I have said that I will participate in the discussion, but as long as it's only the OP continually poking me, I feel no obligation to respond substantively. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

So far, so normal, from his side anyway.

Then it started to get weird. He reverted himself half an hour later. But since he then went straight back to stonewalling while editing elsewehere, It didn't seem that unusual.

The tide was now rolling. BMK was about to get his shit pushed in. The dreaded evidence of a pattern was being recorded.

Talk of 1RR might be mild, but for an Unblockable, that's some humiliating shit.

Then it got really wierd. Out of nowhere, and conspicuous by his absence thus far, up pops Drmies.....

I happen to know that BMK is going through some things, and some of those things may have contributed to a shorter fuse than was called for. T he above list is--well, if half the list is from June of 2016, then maybe we should not weight those things so heavily. I propose we move on: I know BMK is trying to. If at any point his supposed stonewalling is actually disruptive enough to warrant a block (or if it amounts to edit warring, etc.), then surely one of the administrator in this thread can consider placing a block. Same for the other editor, of course. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The shocking revelation perhaps misdirected some people, and they didn't even notice the disrespect in calling it "supposed stonewalling".

But this is the thing about being such an asshole, and for such a long time. All that got BMK was a brief lull, and pretty soon, people were pushing back on the idea that BMK could be cut some slack. It's quite a sight to see given these "things" could be pretty serious. Dead grandma serious. No more milk and cookies for BMK serious.

(I was never the kind of guy to make fun of the prospect of a man's mee ma dying, until I observed up close and in detail, what kind of man could often be found inhabiting the swamp that is Wikipedia)

The time to do something train was rolling again, having barely stopped. Drmies tried his best to make his post stick and have the whole thing go away, and it usually works. But not this time.

Then it got REALLY WEIRD. BMK posted a long and surprising message.....

As mentioned above, I've had some very serious family events going on which have distracted me since the end of June. My participation here has been minimal, and the effort I've put into my editing has been poor, which has lead up to this situation.

I've had time now to review this thread, and my actions at Induced demand, and I substantively agree that my behavior has been very poor, and not at all up to the standards of what is expected from Wikipedia editors, or, for that matter, which I expect of myself. As suggested by multiple commenters, to "stonewall" without explanation is not acceptable: I should have provided the reasoning behind my objection to the changes that User:HTGS made, and fully participated in the consensus discussion they started. My failure to do so was entirely wrong.

I apologize to the community, and specifically to HTGS, for my rude behavior, and I formally withdraw my objections to the changes they wish to make to the article.

My personal situation is ongoing, but not interminable, and it was my intention not to edit in any major way until it had passed and I was able to edit with a clearer mind and fewer distractions; in fact, I contemplated asking for a self-block for a month or so to help me in carrying that out, but ended up not doing that.

If, as a result of the discussion above, some sort of sanction is deemed necessary by the community, I stand willing to accept it, although I do hope that it won't be required.

I'm not sure that I have much more to say about this incident, so I don't plan to comment further here unless someone has specific issues they wish me to address, in which case I request a ping to make me aware of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Wow.

To say that is a turnaround from his usual fare, is an understatement.

And it worked. Everyone got off his back. Well, almost everyone....

@Beyond My Ken: Thank you for your comments above. I now consider this particular matter to be resolved. However, I hope you realize that there is evidence here of an ongoing problem. An acknowledgement of that from you and a promise to try to do better would also be much appreciated. And you should understand that It will be more difficult to overlook any such behavior going forward. I've admired you and your contributions for a long time, and I hope to do so for a long time to come. Paul August 15:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

This is when I nearly fell off my chair.

BMK has replied to that comment in a very un-BMK way (but entirely consistent with the changed man seen above)....

@Paul August: Yes, please do take my comment above as an acknowledgement of not only this particular incident, but also of past incidents as well, which present a picture of poor behavior on my part. I very much hope that moving on from here I will be successful in stopping myself from editing in that manner. Because I edit in some controversial areas (it's ironic that the article in the current case was not a particularly controversial one), meaning I come up against some difficult situations, I may be prone to slip a little at times, in which case I would appreciate a note from someone politely pointing out the error of my ways, which I hope will be sufficient to get me back on track again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

So, dear reader. We can perhaps rejoice. BMK has seen the light. He is a changed man.

Well, not so fast. You should remember, this is BMK.

I have actually seen this before. The Rambling Man tried the old dead grandma trick. An obvious play for sympathy and a great way to make the prospect of serious sanctions based on patterns of behaviour, just go away.

Would BMK do such a thing? Would he see the way the wind was blowing in that AN/I, and think, well, shit, maybe people are gonna do something this time. And as small as it might be, it could start the ball rolling. It's time for something different. A Hail Mary.

I said this when Eric Corbett was finally despatched. He had many pretenders to his throne, but none had his capacity for just all out daring the community. Mooning them. And it has been that way since Eric's long overdue demise. All his would be successors as Asshole No. 1 have caved, eventually. Needed a Hail Mary. None have been prepared to go as far as Eric did. If it sounds like Eric was being brave, he really wasn't. He was as brave as a toddler - never admitting fault, never backing down. Bravery is owning who you are. Taking responsibility. Apologising.

So, would BMK lie about his personal situation just to emotionally blackmail the community?

If you're thinking, well, yes, he probably would, then you would be correct. You have done your time and studied your subject.

What I find most interesting here, is that I don't think it is even unreasonable to say Drmies might be in on any attempted deception. Would Drmies have seen the way the wind was blowing, and advise BMK that making up (or at the very least, vastly exaggerating) any current personal problems, was his only play left? Absolutely he would. Look how hard he tried to land that post. Meticulously polite. So strange. So unlike Drmies. So very....calculated.

Either way, whether he is sincere or faking it, Beyond My Ken has done something he can never row back.

The only way is up now. Fully reformed.

A relapse will see him kicked to the kerb. Wikipedia can be quite merciless in that respect, although given the absolute liberties BMK has extracted thus far, he could count himself lucky if all he got was an indefinite block.

Oh, and yes, he is still editing.

Poor grandma.

i dont believe the dead grandma story. i would believe he has AIDS though.

First beeblebrox and now this? Its like Christmas seeing these assholes getting dealt with. Of course it took far too long, but its nice to see them getting their comeuppance finally!

And a small reminder of why BMK is on Wikipedia in the first place....

https://wikipedia-sucks-badly.blogspot. ... y-ken.html

Remember, that was EIGHT YEARS AGO. David Gordon has since died--yet Mr. Fitzgerald CONTINUES to carefully guard and manicure all the content relating to David Gordon. HE CAN'T STOP. And maybe he should.

Yet another username which came up FREQUENTLY in my research of online doxing and the outing of Wikipedia female editors, followed by real life harassment where personal information was shared with others. Somewhere in my notes I also have his real name, don't have access to them at this time, but in real life he was involved in stalking and harassment cases as well which show up in a few public records.

Flattery, or copyright violation?

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... =8&t=13262

rnu wrote:At frst it was treated with the usual dismissive blame the victim attitude we all expect from ANI. Then something changed. It was brought up that BMK refuses to say why he objects to a change and that this is a familiar pattern for BMK......Note that at this point we're on day four with no reaction by BMK. How's that for stonewalling?....Admin Drmies (T-C-L) makes a dramatic entrance.....There are no further details. I can only speculate that his grandma died and his dog ate his homework......Finally, on day six follows the long awaited appearance of the star, BMK himself. Hold your breath, it is an Oscar/Tony/Emmy worthy performance.....Wait a second, wasn't his excuse for his behavior that he "had some very serious family events going on"? How does that fit with the pattern? Oh never mind.

I'll assume good faith and thank rnu for recognising greatness in criticism and trying to return Wikipediocracy to some semblance of being a critic's forum.

The lack of credit is understandable. Disgusting, but understandable. Jake rules by fear. The Enemy is known.

Shhhhhhh! We we never here.

The Garbage Scow wrote:Ken reverts the other editor once with no edit summary, then when reverted, proceeds to edit war back to his preferred version with the addition of the very helpful edit summary "Not an improvement".

And where did he learn that? There is a reason BMK's tongue is a permanent president of Drmies' rectum (to the point of him apparently being a confidant).

Ritchie333 wrote:I think User:Beyond My Ken/thoughts (T-H-L) is quite insightful, personally.

Because you're the sort of dumb bastard who rises to power in Wikipedia.

And then gets to post with impunity on the so called Wikipedia criticism site Wikipediocracy. A member of the "we" that Beeblebrox famously (and quite correctly) identified as the ties that bind Wikipediocrats and Wikipedians under the Reign of Jake.

While real critics who can do this......

The Mighty Crow wrote:

Wikipedia dipshit wrote:It's not possible to be human and have no point of view -- being human requires a point of view. Attempting to write about anything without a point of view is the same as trying to write about it without thinking about it.

Bullshit. The skill of writing without a point of view is one of the things an encyclopedia writer is trained to do. Writing while thinking. It is why the role requires both specific and general expertise. An encyclopedia editor exists to act as a futher check and balance, identifying any failure in the writer to be mindful of and mitigate their own biases. An editorial board sets policies to guide their editors. All the product of years of focusing on what readers need (even if it isn't what they want).

Thanks to its wisdomous early architects (BMK's first edit was in late 2009, which as detailed elsewhere, was right about the time certain insurgent assholes had scorched the Wiki Earth and made Wikipedia palatable only to other assholes), Wikipedia had (and still has) extremely specific guidance on how to write with a neutral point of view. The presence of editors like you, protected by Administrators like Drmies, two people who absolutely embody the problem with Wikipedia (a belief one person can be both writer and editor), means such policies are meaningless. All attempts to follow it by good faith editors, If they contradict BMK's/Drmies' point of view on any content matter, are nullified with extreme force.

Who gave you two this awesome power? Drmies his technical powers, You your social standing?

Nobody who is trained to do so. There is nobody on Wikipedia who used to write or edit real encyclopedias. Just like there are no Michelin chefs working in McDonald's and no MIT professors manning tech support helplines

This is Wikipedia. The elevation of the unremarkable.

......IN THEIR SLEEP are exiled. Mocked. Insulted.

By people not fit to lace his boots.

I'm a big boy, but I am also a very bad man.

Did you think I would take that shit lying down?

Well done Jake.

Your silence convicts you.

Your bullshit condemns you.

Your bitch rnu is my bitch now.

Largelyrecyclable wrote:Drmies has been running moron groupies like BMK for years.

For sure, but it is quite pertinent this has only been possible due to the complete and total lack of objection from Beeblebrox, Ritchie333, Dennis Brown, NewYorkBrad, or any of the other people from Wikipedia who are given the red carpet treatment at Wikipediocracy.

None of you bitches can say a damn word about how evil Drmies is, while swilling champagne and fois grois with some of his very bestest Wikipedia friends, enablers and indeed his former colleagues at the top table of Wikipedia, privy to its highest confidences and co-master of its most powerful systems of editor control.