Starting a new thread because
the old one was getting long and tired.
While I personally have no doubt that
Benjiboi == freelance writer
Benjamin Holmann (note correct spelling) ==
Sister Kitty Catalyst ==
DJ Pusspuss, and therefore has some obvious conflict of interest issues, Benjiboi seems to have moved from mere vagueness about the issue to more overt redirection. And who's to blame for all this?
Peter Damian and Wikipedia Review:
QUOTE
What it comes down to - do you want to encourage on-wiki harassment based on offsite accusations, by banned users no less? Or do you want to see issues civilly addressed in a manner befitting an encyclopedia? It's your community, you decide how you want editors treated. The anon who'se stirring drama and Cameron Scott is now acting in concert with is likely User:Peter Damian or one of his Wikipedia Review enablers. When they first started harassing me on another article a quick look at their edit history was obviously filled with socking and harassment of other editors. But whatever you feel is the best way forward will have to carry the day here. -- Banjeboi 11:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
As for the autobiographies? Well, he couldn't have written just
one because
there weren't reliable sources linking his alter-egos and so it wouldn't have been according to the WP rules, would it?
QUOTE
I wrote those articles three years ago and generally ignored them. I certainly wouldn't write the DJ one again as it wouldn't cut the notability threshold. The Catalyst one, I might, as co-founding several groups and getting awards she sure seems to be notable enough. And I have taken responsibility, I wrote some poorly worded articles and at the time - and even today - a newby article along those lines is quite common. Cameron Scott, for months, possibly longer, has targeted mostly LGBT hate-crime victim articles speciously arguing that since the authorities didn't rule something was a hate crime it must not be. We'll just gloss over the fact that in many if not most cases a crime couldn't be classified as such because the legal systems hadn't developed the classifications yet, we are only this year seeing the first federal level hate crime classifications in process. So you may have felt I was out of step, however there was more to the situation. And no, it's not my job or anyone else's to make any article comprehensive unless they make it their job and wish to elevate an article to GA or FA. I've cleaned-up hundreds of articles that were stubby and accurate and will keep growing. Is it my job to fill out early life, bibliography and various appropriate backgrounds on every article I touch. No. I might but it's not my or anyone else's job to. If you're insinuating that I should have linked the two articles? Sorry, I had no sources supporting it. You might not believe me but I generally start with books, then work through periodicals and maybe look at someone's website to see if they have major information that is missing, if I'm lucky they actually have press mentions linked. I generally don't bother to even look at blogs unless looking for key pieces of information. I only used Google searches three years ago and frankly even after the question was raised there was nothing as far as I saw that linked the two in any reliable sources, even all the google hits didn't show anything worth pursuing. So accuse me of not calling in a sleuth but I saw no reason at the time. Frankly there was more compelling hunches that Catalyst could have been one of the other Sisters as many of them have multiple names. I really didn't care that much and still don't. They were my newby articles and like a lot of newby articles, deleted. What remains is a disportionate, venomous and vindictive reaction that is largely absent of civility. Harassment, hostile or not, remains harassment. It drives good editors away and squashes civil discussion. Consensus was to delete both articles, I agree only with the DJ one but I respect consensus. Harassment wasn't questioning the articles or the content; it's wikihounding me and labeling thirty other articles with no evident problems as COI against guidelines and continually accusing me of variously working for all those entities in some way. Good grief, if I was ever paid to write an article I personally would aim for it to be a GA not a stub. You can certainly believe whatever you wish but as long as I'm around I'll defend you and anyone else against harassment as well. We don't need wikibullies we need editors to feel free to participate in helping build articles. If volunteers are abused they'll take their talents elsewhere. I think Cameron Scott and the other four editors who have been wikihounding can do good work but there does seem to be an organized effort to harass here. And harassing editors is wrong, no matter how justified they may feel. There's a saying - even if you're paranoid it doesn't mean someone's not out to get you. Check out this bit of bad faith. This ongoing situation failed the duck test at least a month ago. May you never have the devoted attention such as this. -- Banjeboi 22:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
If caught, deny everything!