Unblockable? Beyond My Ken

[rnu]

Beyond My Ken (T-C-L) who has racked up over 260,000 edits since 2009 averaging 51.451 edits per day, has an impressive block log dating back to 2010, and has been to ANI so often that I had to order by date to find the right discussion, and has been mentioned here so often that I gave up looking for a thread to piggyback on recently performed the Dying Swan at ANI receiving standing ovations.

Act I
He was reported for hostility and stonewalling at Induced demand (T-H-L) (relevant Talk page discussion). At first 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. Ivanvector even got as far as saying that he would consider a page block if BMK wasn't such an experienced user (because obviously the expectation to follow rules should be higher for new users than those who've been around for years). Then Swarm (T-C-L) expressed his exasperation at this "perennial problem going back many years" and involving "countless people":

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

Meanwhile admin RegentsPark (T-C-L) saw no problem with BMK's behavior whatsoever and took the victim blaming route.
Then Mackensen (T-C-L) followed up on another user's request to show that there is a pattern. Guess what, there is. Note that at this point we're on day four with no reaction by BMK. How's that for stonewalling?
End Act I

Act II
Admin Drmies (T-C-L) makes a dramatic entrance:

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)

There are no further details. I can only speculate that his grandma died and his dog ate his homework.
Still a few people wanted at least minimal "consequences", so a 1RR was proposed.
Then Swarm who was so exasperated above performs a truly impressive routine of mental gymnastics that would no doubt secure him a medal at the Olympics:

Agreed. While I can sympathize with BMK on a human level for whatever he’s going through right now, I have never not. And most of us have never not. BMK has always been a very well-liked, sympathetic, highly respected editor, and it is uncontentious that he is overwhelmingly a net positive member of the community, to say the least. It brings me no joy to criticize him, much less say he should be sanctioned. I just can’t buy into the suggestion that this is a minor incident that has blown over and we should all just cut BMK a break and move on. That’s literally what we’ve been doing for years and years. It sucks, but I can’t even take the suggestion seriously anymore. It is just an endless cycle and begging him to self-correct over the years just hasn’t worked. ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

End Act II

Act III
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:

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)

The receptive audience at ANI starts gushing their thanks for being allowed to witness this majestic event.
Except, wasn't there talk of some kind of pattern? Going back, what days, weeks? It's hard to say at this point. After this is very respectfully broached BMK assures his audience:

@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)

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. We've been treated to a performance for the ages!
End Act III

Grand Finale
Closed without action and thanks given to BMK by admin 78.26 (T-C-L):

This is how I wish ANI always worked. BMK has taken ownership of actions that were shown to be disruptive and harmful to others' experience here. He has shown grace, empathy, and a commitment to do better. Equally impressive is the grace and empathy with which the apology has been accepted. Bravo. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

[Zoll]

Grand finales' are always the best.

[The Garbage Scow]

BMK is one of the worst of the "it's better in my preferred version" pushers. It took me 10 seconds to find another example on his talk page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... ng_my_edit?

The edit BMK says "did not improve the article, which was better before", is this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1175591655

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".

There are also gems like this on his talk page

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

People like Ken is why WP:DICK used to exist.

[LargelyRecyclable]

My favorite Beyond My Ken episode was when he started after official portrait pictures of historical figures he didn't like because they were high quality and that "glorified them".

He's a complete nut.

[Ritchie333]

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

[Disgruntled haddock]

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

Who cares how insightful he is? Communities die when we tolerate arrogant assholes because they happen to be technically correct.

[ltbdl]

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

Who cares how insightful he is? Communities die when we tolerate arrogant assholes because they happen to be technically correct.

i think he means insightful into bmk himself, though i could be wrong

[utbc]

He's not unblockable. In fact, I would bet that no one is anymore. He does have some capital, and importantly, has not been targeted by someone more influential. Drmies has a sizeable following but it is generally not the kind to go all out for one editor, esp. not an editor who is not Drmies. If Swarm had actually proposed something, it might have even been close. I am guessing BMK has been around long enough to know the big players and is smart enough to not piss them off. Explains the collective "MEH" from the peanut gallery. Most interesting out of that thread for me was EducatedRedneck. 300 edits in 3 years include defense of TRM, EEng, Trypto and now BMK, a barnstar for Lourdes, and coincidentally, the two admins they find most approachable are Tamzin and TNT.

[rnu]

Let me introduce you to another of Beyond My Ken's recent ventures. In fact this one came to my attention first, but I was too lazy at the time to write it up. So gather round and listen to the tale of the White Knight protecting the article on Horst Wessel (T-H-L) from whitewashing.

He is fighting all the evil pro-Nazi editors who want to keep his preferred first sentence out:

Horst Ludwig Georg Erich Wessel (9 October 1907 – 23 February 1930) was a German street gangster and, according to some sources, a procurer of prostitutes[2][3] who became a Sturmführer ("Assault Leader"), the lowest commissioned officer rank in the Sturmabteilung (SA), the paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party.

In particular the "according to some sources, a procurer of prostitutes" claim is heavily disputed. Not, mind you, that it should be mentioned, but that it should be mentioned in the first sentence and before his role in the SA.

Let's start with what BMK has had to say on the matter over the years. It starts rather surprising:

What was your source? I ask because KPD (German Communist Party) propaganda emphasized his status as a "pimp", and, indeed, initially characterized his murder as an argument between two pimps, before the truth came out about the KPD status of the murderers. A neutral source, after which they downplayed the incident entirely. Neutral sources I read don't refer to Wessel as a "pimp", or, if they do, don't emphasize it as significant - so where did you read that he was definitiely a pimp for the SA?? BMK (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Both sides mischaracterized Wessel for their own purposes. The Nazis painted him as a martyr, and the Communists as a pimp. BMK (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Wait, wait, wait he said that it is communist propaganda? Don't worry he'll change his tune. The real conflict started about the claim that Wessel was a "pimp" or "procurer of women" broke out in April 2023.

I've reverted your edits, returning the article to the status quo ante, except with the additional citations. Please get a consensus on this page to make the changes you wish to make. To my eye, your suggested changes amount to an attempt to whitewash the character of Wessel, which is the last thing this article (or any article on a Nazi) needs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing in this article remotely analogous to calling Hitler a "Satanic lizard person". The changes you are attempting to make are indeed attempts to whitewash a constructed Nazi martyr who was nothing but a street fighter killed over a dispute concerning a prostitute in the context of Communist street fighters battling Nazi street fighters. The evidence cited makes that quite clear, while your edits try to clean up Wessel's image. That simply is not going to happen. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, by all means, let's take extraordinary steps to ignore citations from reliable sources so as not to sully the good name of a Nazi martyr. I suggest that you PUT DOWN THE STICK. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd kinda like to know that too, since it seems to me that - without impugning anyone's motivation whatsoever - it appeared to me that some editors who objected were simply being overly fastidious about sullying the reputation of Wessel.
People who joined the various street-fighting organizations, such as the SA, the Red Front-Fighters (RFB, Communist) or the Reichsbanner (Social Democrats), were very often from the very lowest social classes, so it would not be surprising that many of them were petty thieves or pimps. Because of the spotlight that Goebbels threw on Wessel, historians have researched his life more than the vast majority of Weimar street fighters, so it seems odd to ignore that information, when it specifically has relevance to Wessel's murder. Indeed, some historians see the death as being the result of a personal conflict over a prostitute, with the political context being secondary. I don't think we know enough to make that determination, but we certainly know that Wessel was what he was, and we should say so, especially since it throws an ironic light on his transformation into a Nazi martyr. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Note that while of course BMK insists on other people seeking consensus the information was introduced without consensus and BMK has since battled numerous people to keep it in.
Speaking of seeking consensus, someone took it to dispute resolution. Of course BMK took this opportunity to once and for all establish that consensus is on his side? Right? Of course not:

Summary of dispute by Beyond My Ken
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I will not participate in this case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The dispute resolution process led to an RfC which is decidedly not going in BMK's favor. Of nine people voting so far he is the only one who wants to keep the pimp claim in the opening sentence. And only one other participant voted for a version that would put it in the second sentence.

Now of course, even if the sentence belonged in the first sentence, BMK's behavior would still be completely unaccaptable and violate a host of PAGs.
Even if the information was true, it would still not belong in the first sentence.
But is it true?

Don't worry BMK offers two sources.

Randall, Annie J., ed. (2004). Music, Power, and Politics. Taylor & Francis. p. 100. ISBN 978-1-135-94690-6. Quote: "Historians agree that his death was also related to a quarrel in the procurer scene."

That is not quoted correctly. The claim in question appears in a footnote:

35. After having been killed in his apartment, NSDAP (National Socialist German Workers' Party) member and SA leader Horst Wessel (1907-1930) was martyrized by the Nazis (historians agree that his death was also related to a quarrel in the procurer scene). His so-called "Horst-Wessel-Lied" ("Horst Wessel Song") became the (unofficial) second anthem, always sung in addition to the national anthem.

The author gives no sources whatsoever. But I'm sure it is written by a subject matter expert? The author is Britta Sweers, professor of Cultural Anthropology of Music at the University of Bern. Nothing says I have plenty of reliable sources like using an unsourced footnote in a chapter written by a cultural anthropologist of music for a book about music and politics for a claim about history, right? (The reason Wessel is mentioned in a book about music and politics is of course the Horst-Wessel-Lied (T-H-L).)
The other source given by BMK is a biography of Wessel:

Siemens, Daniel (2013). The Making of a Nazi Hero: The Murder and Myth of Horst Wessel. Burnett, David (trans.). London: I. B.Tauris. ISBN 978-0-85773-313-9.

Surely this gives the strongest possible support for the claim, right? Well, I don't have access to the full book. I skimmed what is available at google book preview (including the pages allegedly proving the claim) and would summarize the relevant information like this:
The claim that Wessel was a pimp originates with propaganda by his political enemies.
The police and the court at the time dismissed the claim as baseless.
There is no actual evidence for the claim.
There is no way to rule out that he was a pimp or that it contributed to his murder.
Don't want to take my word for it. I get it. How about a book review? From Myers, Jeffrey. Review of The Making of a Nazi Hero: The Murder and Myth of Horst Wessel, by Daniel Siemens. German Studies Review, vol. 40 no. 1, 2017, p. 222-223. Project MUSE, https://doi.org/10.1353/gsr.2017.0034.

Siemens begins his investigation with the murder of Wessel in Berlin on January 14, 1930, a tale shrouded in many layers of mystery and propaganda. The Nazi narrative, honed by Joseph Goebbels, is that Wessel died at the hands of Communists who were keen on revenge against the successful Nazi agitator and street fighter. Alternatively, the Communist narrative, in an attempt to distance the party from the crime, painted Wessel as a pimp who died as a result of his nefarious activities. Through painstaking research of police records, contemporary newspaper accounts, both Nazi and Communist party records, court records, and individual testimony, Siemens has discovered that the truth of Wessel’s murder is much less dramatic. It seems instead that Wessel died as a result of a dispute with Elisabeth Sahm, who rented Wessel a room in her apartment on Grosse Frankfurter Strasse 62 in Berlin-Friedrichshain. Wessel lived in the room with his girlfriend, Erna Jaenichen, without paying extra rent. Apparently upset by Wessel’s behavior, Sahm sought help from the local Communist cell of Berlin-Mitte, which frequented the Baer tavern. Initially uninterested in Sahm’s plight, several members eventually agreed to give her tenant a “proletarian drubbing” once they discovered that the troublemaker was Horst Wessel. Thus, they proceeded to the apartment on January 14, where the group’s leader, Albrecht Höhler, shot Wessel—he succumbed to his wounds on February 23.

OK, but what about other sources? Encyclopedia Brittanica does not mention the claim at all. How about the Jewish Virtual Library (T-H-L)? Let's see:

The shooting was immediately exploited by both the Nazis and the Communists to further their political aims. The Communists portrayed Wessel as a pimp, while the Nazis claimed he had actually saved his girlfriend from a life of prostitution by introducing her to the Nazi Party and its values.

Can you believe this pro-Nazi whitewashing?

[eppur si muove]

Let me introduce you to another of Beyond My Ken's recent ventures. In fact this one came to my attention first, but I was too lazy at the time to write it up. So gather round and listen to the tale of the White Knight protecting the article on Horst Wessel (T-H-L) from whitewashing.

He is fighting all the evil pro-Nazi editors who want to keep his preferred first sentence out:

Horst Ludwig Georg Erich Wessel (9 October 1907 – 23 February 1930) was a German street gangster and, according to some sources, a procurer of prostitutes[2][3] who became a Sturmführer ("Assault Leader"), the lowest commissioned officer rank in the Sturmabteilung (SA), the paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party.

Why I consider the lede crap is that it takes three paragraphs to mention the thing that he is most famous for.

[The Garbage Scow]

The stuff about pimping doesn't belong in the lede unless it's covered in detail in the body of the article and is an important part of his biography. We already know he was a gangster as well as a thug in the SA, why does the lede need this factually disputed claim? Whether it's true or not doesn't even matter in an argument about whether it belongs in the lede.

[rnu]

I don't think admin Future Perfect at Sunrise (T-C-L) understands how RfCs work. They changed the first sentence with the edit summary "reword lead sentence as per RfC on talk". The RfC has been running for three weeks and has not been closed.

[LargelyRecyclable]

Let me introduce you to another of Beyond My Ken's recent ventures. In fact this one came to my attention first, but I was too lazy at the time to write it up. So gather round and listen to the tale of the White Knight protecting the article on Horst Wessel (T-H-L) from whitewashing.

He is fighting all the evil pro-Nazi editors who want to keep his preferred first sentence out:

Ah, yes.

Just off the cuff here, but this is a little closer to my wheelhouse.

At the height of the "Nazis behind every bush" hysteria of the Trump years, BMK took it upon himself to snipe at a perceived Wehraboo infiltration of Wikipedia. He wasn't nearly as intelligent or effective as K.e.coffman (T-C-L), but he gave it the ol' college try. My final interaction with him was, if I remember correctly, this abbreviated but amusing exchange about whether or not Hitler was a "soldier". Spoiler alert: he was.

This was all part of a coordinated campaign where BMK played the part of Dr Frankenstein's Igor. Five, six years ago. It also included Drmies (T-C-L), who tried to claim that anyone without a Ph.D couldn't be a reliable source. At least until he realized that people saying the things he wanted didn't have Ph.Ds. You can check that out on the Panzer ace (T-H-L) talk page, which is hilarious.

Drmies has been running moron groupies like BMK for years.

[rnu]

I don't think admin Future Perfect at Sunrise (T-C-L) understands how RfCs work. They changed the first sentence with the edit summary "reword lead sentence as per RfC on talk". The RfC has been running for three weeks and has not been closed.

I just noticed that it is also an INVOLVED action, since FPaS voted for the version they inserted into the article.

[rnu]

Let me introduce you to another of Beyond My Ken's recent ventures. In fact this one came to my attention first, but I was too lazy at the time to write it up. So gather round and listen to the tale of the White Knight protecting the article on Horst Wessel (T-H-L) from whitewashing.

He is fighting all the evil pro-Nazi editors who want to keep his preferred first sentence out:

Ah, yes.

Just off the cuff here, but this is a little closer to my wheelhouse.

At the height of the "Nazis behind every bush" hysteria of the Trump years, BMK took it upon himself to snipe at a perceived Wehraboo infiltration of Wikipedia. He wasn't nearly as intelligent or effective as K.e.coffman (T-C-L), but he gave it the ol' college try. My final interaction with him was, if I remember correctly, this abbreviated but amusing exchange about whether or not Hitler was a "soldier". Spoiler alert: he was.

Seriously? That is a very important aspect of his biography. Without it there is a decent chance he wouldn't have become involved in politics and almost certainly not in the NSdAP.

This was all part of a coordinated campaign where BMK played the part of Dr Frankenstein's Igor. Five, six years ago. It also included Drmies (T-C-L), who tried to claim that anyone without a Ph.D couldn't be a reliable source. At least until he realized that people saying the things he wanted didn't have Ph.Ds. You can check that out on the Panzer ace (T-H-L) talk page, which is hilarious.

Drmies has been running moron groupies like BMK for years.

That explains Drmies' dramatic involvement. I'm guessing he (or someone) else told BMK that this time he has to fake contrition to get away with his behavior.

[utbc]

I don't think admin Future Perfect at Sunrise (T-C-L) understands how RfCs work. They changed the first sentence with the edit summary "reword lead sentence as per RfC on talk". The RfC has been running for three weeks and has not been closed.

I just noticed that it is also an INVOLVED action, since FPaS voted for the version they inserted into the article.

Y'all being daft. It's not an involved action because the article was not full-protected at the time. He made a bold edit per emerging consensus at the RFC. If the other side agrees that that seems to be the case, people can move on. If there's still a fight and someone reverts him telling him to wait for the close, he is fine as long as he doesn't then restore it.

[rnu]

Today I went over to Sucks to see whether ChaosMeRee still wants to show me his "chainsaw" - I think he does.
Turns out he wrote about BMK's Dying Swan performance several days before me. Turns out BMK did not wait six days to answer after all. He answered on day two, but reverted himself shortly after:

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)

Somehow I suspect that someone told him this kind of answer would not go down well this time.
CMR seems to be more optimistic than I am that the next incident will see actual consequences for BMK.
User Jennsaurus made allegations about serious past misbehavior. No evidence offered, but I wouldn't be too surprised if they were true.
Thread on Sucks (open at own risk, make sure to check whether your rabies shots are up to date first)
Hi suckers!

[Boing! said Zebedee]

User Jennsaurus made allegations about serious past misbehavior. No evidence offered, but I wouldn't be too surprised if they were true.

User Jennsaurus is OberRanks, one of Wikipedia's worst ever liars and fantasists - booted out for massive fabrication of content and sources, stretching back more than a decade.

[rnu]

User Jennsaurus made allegations about serious past misbehavior. No evidence offered, but I wouldn't be too surprised if they were true.

User Jennsaurus is OberRanks, one of Wikipedia's worst ever liars and fantasists - booted out for massive fabrication of content and sources, stretching back more than a decade.

I see.

[LargelyRecyclable]

User Jennsaurus is OberRanks, one of Wikipedia's worst ever liars and fantasists - booted out for massive fabrication of content and sources, stretching back more than a decade.

Oberranks was one of the most ubiquitous editors in the German World War II space. He really latched onto the Wehraboo Hunter routine late in the game, but never seemed to actually rock the boat too much. Mostly just snide comments and fussy little edits. His sourcing manipulation was so lowkey and uneventful that I missed it entirely, much to my embarrassment.

[Elinruby]

My favorite Beyond My Ken episode was when he started after official portrait pictures of historical figures he didn't like because they were high quality and that "glorified them".

He's a complete nut.