Benjiboi, and his 2 autobiographies Options Rating

[tarantino]

Not many editors have their own autobiography, Benji is perhaps the only one to have two.

His DJ Pusspuss persona is a self-described American club, mobile and event DJ, music reviewer, activist and event producer.

While Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P., is a self-described uber-nun and homo-propagandist.

He is also mostly responsible for Sisters_of_Perpetual_Indulgence (T-H-L-K-D), a non-profit organization he works for, and the bios of several of his fellow nuns.

Concerns about an undisclosed conflict of interest and unlabeled autobiographies have been brought up a couple of times on wiki before, in 2007 and 2008. They were brushed aside by Benji and a small group of his enablers. There is very little doubt it is all true though.

(thanks to an anonymous tipster)

[A Horse With No Name]

And the point is...? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

[JayT]

Not many editors have their own autobiography, Benji is perhaps the only one to have two.

His DJ Pusspuss persona is a self-described American club, mobile and event DJ, music reviewer, activist and event producer.

While Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P., is a self-described uber-nun and homo-propagandist.

He is also mostly responsible for Sisters_of_Perpetual_Indulgence (T-H-L-K-D), a non-profit organization he works for, and the bios of several of his fellow nuns.

Concerns about an undisclosed conflict of interest and unlabeled autobiographies have been brought up a couple of times on wiki before, in 2007 and 2008. They were brushed aside by Benji and a small group of his enablers. There is very little doubt it is all true though.

(thanks to an anonymous tipster)

I take it this hasn't been acknowledged on wikipedia? Not that I'm doubting you, but is there proof that could be used to show that the articles are vanity pages?

[A Horse With No Name]

Not many editors have their own autobiography, Benji is perhaps the only one to have two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wik...s_with_articles

[tarantino]

I take it this hasn't been acknowledged on wikipedia? Not that I'm doubting you, but is there proof that could be used to show that the articles are vanity pages?

No and yes. Someone will bring it up onwiki eventually, because everyone who's anyone there reads WR.

Edit: Here's a statement from Sister Iona Dubble-Wyde:

the wiki entry [on the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence] was largely written by Sister Kitty Catalyst of the Mother House in SF.

Benjiboi has made 226 of the 694 non-bot edits to the article.

This post has been edited by tarantino:

[One]

I take it this hasn't been acknowledged on wikipedia? Not that I'm doubting you, but is there proof that could be used to show that the articles are vanity pages?

Hard to say. See DJ_Pusspuss AfD.

This post has been edited by One:

[gomi]

I take it this hasn't been acknowledged on wikipedia?

Someone will bring it up onwiki eventually, because everyone who's anyone there reads WR.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner:

Hard to say.

[thekohser]

Just so I have this clear...

One of Wikipedia's leading editors is also a notable DJ spinning tunes for "t-girl" strippers?

No wonder Wikipedia is "almost" as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica.

[Alison]

I take it this hasn't been acknowledged on wikipedia? Not that I'm doubting you, but is there proof that could be used to show that the articles are vanity pages?

No and yes. Someone will bring it up onwiki eventually, because everyone who's anyone there reads WR.

Edit: Here's a statement from Sister Iona Dubble-Wyde:

the wiki entry [on the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence] was largely written by Sister Kitty Catalyst of the Mother House in SF.

Benjiboi has made 226 of the 694 non-bot edits to the article.

*coff* (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

[No one of consequence]

Not many editors have their own autobiography, Benji is perhaps the only one to have two.

I take it this hasn't been acknowledged on wikipedia? Not that I'm doubting you, but is there proof that could be used to show that the articles are vanity pages?

I got the same tip but I don't have time to personally investigate. Maybe One or SirFozzie or FT2 has time on his hands.

*coff* (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

Alison wins the kewpie doll!

[Peter Damian]

B has an interesting view of what constitutes a personal attack (in this case an objective look at one of Haiduc's strange articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_pederastic_couples). See below. The problem is that it is difficult to complain about any of this stuff (namely overt propagandising) without being accused of homophobia.

Actually combined with Peter Damian's history of calling other editors something akin to pro-pedophile activists and accusing admins of protecting the same I wanted to be quite firm that veiled accusations like calling the article Haiduc's thesis and stating things such as "acres of original research that Haiduc insists on propogating in Wikipedia" on the talkpage of [[Historical pederastic couples]] is seen as unhelpful, disruptive and uncivil. Adding that to Peter Damian's comment at [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 20#Historical pederastic couples]] - "Everything Haiduc writes is plagued by fallacy of equivocation and similar logical deficiencies." Seems to be a personal attack of some sort. I also see this as possibly violating assuming good faith policy. To me this is an editor whose not showing a polite discourse but flouting the disposition to let bad faith accusations and personal attacks against certain editors stand unchallenged. Wikipedia is not a battleground and an atmosphere of harassment and intimidation should not be encouraged. I also am readily able, as is any editor, to file reports at ANI or another appropriate board if Peter Damian's behavior doesn't come into an acceptable level. Just because some admins have been allowed to abuse tools or fling mud at Haiduc and other editors doesn't mean we all roll over and take punches and personal attacks. We need to support editors not an atmosphere of intolerance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=227111408

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...2nd_nomination)

[Peter Damian]

I got the same tip but I don't have time to personally investigate.

Are they the same person? Benjiboi wrote the entire article about "DJ Pusspuss". And here it says they are the same person

"DJ Puss Puss is also Sister Kitty Catalyst of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence."
http://www.mail-archive.com/squidlist@list...g/msg03608.html

But DJ Pusspuss is clearly mid-twenties, whereas sister kitty is older. Her biography says that s/he "came to San Francisco via the London Order that I had joined (1991-92)" which means age about late thirties

http://www.thesisters.org/bios/kitty.html

However her email is "pusspuss at gotblow dot org". Now http://www.gotblow.org/ is "a grassroots campaign using a safety whistle as a symbol to confront hate crimes", which sister kitty co-founded per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Kitty_Catalyst_O.C.P.. .

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[A Horse With No Name]

I got the same tip but I don't have time to personally investigate. Maybe One or SirFozzie or FT2 has time on his hands.

Funny, someone is sending "tips" that out Benji? It appears more than a few people have time on their hands! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

One of Wikipedia's leading editors is also a notable DJ spinning tunes for "t-girl" strippers?

No wonder Wikipedia is "almost" as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica.

Benji is a "leading" editor? That's news to me. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[Peter Damian]

It appears more than a few people have time on their hands! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

If anything bad or embarrassing turns up it is always helpful to say something like this. Another good reply (often used by Thatcher) is that it happened some time ago (Thatcher has never really specified exactly how long counts).

If anyone subsequently lies about it http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=182144567 , then say that politicians often lie.

Or get a mate to make allegations of stalking or harrassment

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=182177247

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Peter Damian]

Oh I see someone called 'The Land Surveyor' has put the article on the DJ up for deletion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...2nd_nomination)

Will it be deleted? Or will the person who put it up for deletion be blocked or be the target of abuse for supposed harrassment, wikistalking, BADSITES or whatever else? Let's see.

[carbuncle]

Oh I see someone called 'The Land Surveyor' has put the article on the DJ up for deletion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...2nd_nomination)

Will it be deleted? Or will the person who put it up for deletion be blocked or be the target of abuse for supposed harrassment, wikistalking, BADSITES or whatever else? Let's see.

I wonder if this AFD will bring the esteemed LGBT editor and fellow self-promoter Allstarecho out of his retirement (and by retirement I mean leaving in a huff as the ban hammer starts getting warmed up)?

[Peter Damian]

I suspect the whistleblowing may have come from the ranks of the users involved in the paid editing article dispute

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Paid_editing

[A Horse With No Name]

I wonder if this AFD will bring the esteemed LGBT editor and fellow self-promoter Allstarecho out of his retirement (and by retirement I mean leaving in a huff as the ban hammer starts getting warmed up)?

Only if Matt Sanchez shows up. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Peter Damian]

All is explained.

Week keep. Since I last went through and added sources I have been unable to find the radio interviews that were online previously. I'll leave it for others to decide if this meets GNG with what we have. With Fences and windows' excellent detective work seems they co-founded several organizations. There were several two-hour interviews that certainly were independent although they were hardly hard news. They were, BTW, with the same person being used to source the connection but nothing in the interviews addressed any connection or identity besides the DJ one but was helpful to add in some biographical and early life content. Despite Fences and windows' excellent detective work I don't see any sourcing to back up a merge. There is only one unreliable source - an entry on livejournal.com no less - making the assertion but looking through their other entries they seem to make mistakes. There is also the possibility we have two people sharing one email account and by extension, likely live together and work on projects together. -- Banjeboi 21:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] And indeed the Land Surveyor has been blocked.

Blocked
You know the rules and so do I. Brandon (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The rules, as far as I am concerned, are that abuse of accounts is wrong. Here we have a case of a person writing not one, but two articles about themselves. You notice I was discreet enough not to point out the identity on the AfD page. The Land Surveyor (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Land_Surveyor"

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[A Horse With No Name]

[edit] And indeed the Land Surveyor has been blocked.

Blocked
You know the rules and so do I. Brandon (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The rules, as far as I am concerned, are that abuse of accounts is wrong. Here we have a case of a person writing not one, but two articles about themselves. You notice I was discreet enough not to point out the identity on the AfD page. The Land Surveyor (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Land_Surveyor"

Phooey...Horsey wants knockdown, dragout, WWE violence. This stuff is boring. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Peter Damian]

[edit] And indeed the Land Surveyor has been blocked.

Blocked
You know the rules and so do I. Brandon (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The rules, as far as I am concerned, are that abuse of accounts is wrong. Here we have a case of a person writing not one, but two articles about themselves. You notice I was discreet enough not to point out the identity on the AfD page. The Land Surveyor (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Land_Surveyor"

Phooey...Horsey wants knockdown, dragout, WWE violence. This stuff is boring. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Yes but you have no interest in building a serious and comprehensive reference work. Obviously you would find it boring.

[Tower]

Only if Matt Sanchez shows up. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

It needs something like that to make this more interesting, doesn't it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

[Robert Roberts]

Some movement on this one - [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sister_Kitty_Catalyst_O.C.P.[/url].

I notice that Scott also asks them outright

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ben...ur_own_articles

This post has been edited by Robert Roberts:

[carbuncle]

Second autobio deletion discussion link.

This post has been edited by carbuncle:

[Peter Damian]

An amusing quote from a related discussion on Skomorokh's talk page.

"Do you have difficulties collaborating with others?" [Skomorokh]

Yes. I have this horrible psychological tic which leaves me unable to productively collaborate with compulsive plagiarists and liars. Obviously, Wikipedia is full of these, and an ability to interact positively with them is important. We should strive to make everyone, especially game-players and liars, feel at home. If regular people try to stop this, they should be banned.24.22.141.252 (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=312174309

[Edit] This is apparently about Benjiboi's plagiarism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=311458333

Perhaps the real reason you are "pushing content discussions to relevant talkpages" is because you don't want anyone who visits your user talk to see it? Especially considering Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Benjiboi (about which I have no opinion, besides noting that you are likewise pleading "harassment".) Charges of "Wikihounding" are not a valid answer to your misattribution of sources and plagiarism; it is actually you who are victimizing others by stealing their work, and victimizing readers by hiding from them the true sources of our text. You have still neither commented upon the pages in which you say discussions should be corralled, nor taken responsibility for, or even fixed, any of the problems for which you've been asked to answer. What is needed, I'm afraid, is for your entire history of contribution to be subjected to similar scrutiny. (I looked at about 50, and found another example of plagiarism right away.)24.22.141.252 (talk) 10:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=311444478

I have looked closer at this IP's work, and it is good. Careful attention to sources, logical, clear and all those good things. Why hasn't s/he been banned? This e.g.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=309858928

Oh my mistake he already has been blocked. Good thing.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Robert Roberts]

Interesting to note that both of those articles seem to be heading to the dustbin. The thing about AFD is that you piss off enough people and then they realise that an article is about you, they will swing by to vote delete because they don't like you carefully consider the sources.


The funniest aspect of the AFDs is the way that people are edging around the COI of Benjiboi because of WP:OUT, like people at a dinner party trying to pretend they haven't notice that the host's dog is having a poop in the corner.

[Deodand]

Interesting to note that both of those articles seem to be heading to the dustbin. The thing about AFD is that you piss off enough people and then they realise that an article is about you, they will swing by to vote delete because they don't like you carefully consider the sources.


The funniest aspect of the AFDs is the way that people are edging around the COI of Benjiboi because of WP:OUT, like people at a dinner party trying to pretend they haven't notice that the host's dog is having a poop in the corner.

Indeed, which is bloody moronic really; carefully avoiding the elephant in the corner. Everyone knows that Benjiboi is both of them, but oh noes! We can't mention it, because it would WP:OUT him! Obviously, writing two biographies of yourself isn't outing at all]

[JayT]

Interesting to note that both of those articles seem to be heading to the dustbin. The thing about AFD is that you piss off enough people and then they realise that an article is about you, they will swing by to vote delete because they don't like you carefully consider the sources.


The funniest aspect of the AFDs is the way that people are edging around the COI of Benjiboi because of WP:OUT, like people at a dinner party trying to pretend they haven't notice that the host's dog is having a poop in the corner.

Well, to be fair, the articles are both a little weak, especially the DJ PussyPuss one. I doubt everyone's voting delete just because they don't like Benjiboi. I'd be more inclined to call ulterior motives on the people who are voting keep.

Come to think of it, shouldn't this thread be in the BLP forum?

[Robert Roberts]

Interesting to note that both of those articles seem to be heading to the dustbin. The thing about AFD is that you piss off enough people and then they realise that an article is about you, they will swing by to vote delete because they don't like you carefully consider the sources.


The funniest aspect of the AFDs is the way that people are edging around the COI of Benjiboi because of WP:OUT, like people at a dinner party trying to pretend they haven't notice that the host's dog is having a poop in the corner.

Well, to be fair, the articles are both a little weak, especially the DJ PussyPuss one. I doubt everyone's voting delete just because they don't like Benjiboi. I'd be more inclined to call ulterior motives on the people who are voting keep.

Come to think of it, shouldn't this thread be in the BLP forum?

About the sources - could be I only took a quick skim - it's just that there is clearly some history between him (her?) and some of those editors. However, I completely take your point about the keep votes. Vary is hilarious in his "I didn't hear that"

"here's a promotion advert linking the two"

"not reliable!"

"Here's a picture taken by the the same person who took the pictures on both of the articles saying the two are one and the same"

"could be anyone!"

"Here's a signed confession from the guy saying the two are one and the same"

"could be the result of torture so should not be trusted"

[One]

For what it's worth, I think Vary is making a different point: these aren't reliable sources for the purposes of merging the articles (as John Vandenburg proposed). I don't think he believes they might actually be different, just that no BLP-worthy sources connect them. As he puts it:

"I'm more skeptical about using an archived mailing list post as a reliable source in a BLP, but it's unimportant at the moment. Until we have a reliable source connecting A to B, it's irrelevant that we can connect B to C."

This post has been edited by One:

[Deodand]

Benjiboi's response to the query about his identity can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=312081897 - very enlightening. "are you these two people?" "I prefer not to tell you who I am". Well that cleared up our concerns nicely, didn't it?

[tarantino]

Benjiboi's response to the query about his identity can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=312081897 - very enlightening. "are you these two people?" "I prefer not to tell you who I am". Well that cleared up our concerns nicely, didn't it?

He says he's been the target of "both real world and wikipedia attacks and threats" and "have been a hate-crime victim and have been on the end of some quite hostile words here on the WP".

He really should have asked for his autobiographies to be deleted and walked away years ago if that is the case. Instead he has been using WP to keep his personas and organizations on top of the Google food chain. You can't have that and your privacy at the same time Benji.

This post has been edited by tarantino:

[A Horse With No Name]

[edit] And indeed the Land Surveyor has been blocked.

Blocked
You know the rules and so do I. Brandon (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The rules, as far as I am concerned, are that abuse of accounts is wrong. Here we have a case of a person writing not one, but two articles about themselves. You notice I was discreet enough not to point out the identity on the AfD page. The Land Surveyor (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Land_Surveyor"

Phooey...Horsey wants knockdown, dragout, WWE violence. This stuff is boring. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Yes but you have no interest in building a serious and comprehensive reference work. Obviously you would find it boring.

Oh, I have an interest in building a serious and comprehensive reference work. But we're talking about Wikipedia -- not the same thing, Petey baby! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[MBisanz]

The outing policy, as I see it, serves some useful Wiki-culture purposes, but also fails on some fronts. The policy's primary point is to encourage editors who do not want their name known to edit articles. I could imagine this being a positive motivation for people who have been stalked, are generally shy/quiet in real life, or who have a public position and want a hobby where they won't be criticized. I could imagine a medical doctor wanting to edit articles on medicine, but not wanting to assume the liability of people suing him for bad information or hounding him for free advice. Also, obviously, there is the idea that children shouldn't have their name on the internet since it simply makes pedophiles jobs that much easier. In these areas the outing policy is rather successful to the extent it encourages responsible contributions.

Where the policy fails is the same place the COI guideline and the external linking policy fail. While it is obviously OK for someone to mention a link to their website in a relevant context, most people on the internet seem intent on putting their link in as many places as possible, so Wikipedia adopts the counter-measure of reverting a good portion of links added. Similarly, if COI actually worked, it would tell people with a financial interest in something that they couldn't edit the article and could only suggest changes, but that would reduce content overall, so we allow people with conflicts to edit.

In this way the outing policy fails, since in order to protect the people mentioned above as completely as possible, it requires us to act without looking at the intentions of the person. So a sockpuppeter is generally protected from disclosure of his IPs or real name. And a self-promotional author is generally protected from linking names together to make the accusation. In a perfect world there would be some kind of "management" making the legally liable decision of when to out a person who refused to act collaboratively, but lacking that perfect world, I really don't see what other options we have other than to enforce the policy blindly.

[Deodand]

The outing policy, as I see it, serves some useful Wiki-culture purposes, but also fails on some fronts. The policy's primary point is to encourage editors who do not want their name known to edit articles. I could imagine this being a positive motivation for people who have been stalked, are generally shy/quiet in real life, or who have a public position and want a hobby where they won't be criticized. I could imagine a medical doctor wanting to edit articles on medicine, but not wanting to assume the liability of people suing him for bad information or hounding him for free advice. Also, obviously, there is the idea that children shouldn't have their name on the internet since it simply makes pedophiles jobs that much easier. In these areas the outing policy is rather successful to the extent it encourages responsible contributions.

Where the policy fails is the same place the COI guideline and the external linking policy fail. While it is obviously OK for someone to mention a link to their website in a relevant context, most people on the internet seem intent on putting their link in as many places as possible, so Wikipedia adopts the counter-measure of reverting a good portion of links added. Similarly, if COI actually worked, it would tell people with a financial interest in something that they couldn't edit the article and could only suggest changes, but that would reduce content overall, so we allow people with conflicts to edit.

In this way the outing policy fails, since in order to protect the people mentioned above as completely as possible, it requires us to act without looking at the intentions of the person. So a sockpuppeter is generally protected from disclosure of his IPs or real name. And a self-promotional author is generally protected from linking names together to make the accusation. In a perfect world there would be some kind of "management" making the legally liable decision of when to out a person who refused to act collaboratively, but lacking that perfect world, I really don't see what other options we have other than to enforce the policy blindly.

Echo all of what you've said. The policy also fails in that it and any other anti-stalking stuff Wikipedia seems to have not actually worked. Several users have been stalked horribly despite these policies, and the Foundation's only response is to put their hands over their ears and sing a loud song until everything goes away. Things like that will continue to be ineffective at driving off stalkers until the Foundation actually becomes prepared to get their hands dirty. The flip side of that, thinking about it, is that the policy could be very, very successful - it's quite hard to list "number of people who might have been harassed IRL if it wasn't for this policy".

In regards to Benjiboi's case - as said, he can't have his cake and eat it. If you want to keep your identity intact, here's a hint; don't write large articles on two of your personas, complete with pictures and real-life associations.

This post has been edited by Deodand:

[Moulton]

Wikipedia is a magnet for narcissists who, on the one hand want to be thought of in a positive light and, on the other hand, want to be anonymous.

[Robert Roberts]

Just seen this on the Sister Kitty AFD

Comment - Either we shit or get off the pot. Benjiboi is Sister Kitty and Dj PussPuss. He's created these articles and lied about their provenance. Crafty (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

will be interesting to see what the response to this will be...

This post has been edited by Robert Roberts:

[carbuncle]

Just seen this on the Sister Kitty AFD

Comment - Either we shit or get off the pot. Benjiboi is Sister Kitty and Dj PussPuss. He's created these articles and lied about their provenance. Crafty (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

will be interesting to see what the response to this will be...

Uhoh. The response was a removal by Skomorokh (per [[WP:OUT]] of course) and an undo of that removal by Craftyminion. I predict Craftyminion will be blocked for failing to observe the proper denial of the bleeding obvious.

This post has been edited by carbuncle:

[Robert Roberts]

Just seen this on the Sister Kitty AFD

Comment - Either we shit or get off the pot. Benjiboi is Sister Kitty and Dj PussPuss. He's created these articles and lied about their provenance. Crafty (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

will be interesting to see what the response to this will be...

Uhoh. The response was a removal by Skomorokh (per [[WP:OUT]] of course) and an undo of that removal by Craftyminion. I predict Craftyminion will be blocked for failing to observe the proper denial of the bleeding obvious.

That's a good question - how obvious does someone's identity have to be before it's no longer an outting?

[carbuncle]

Benjiboi's evasive responses to questions about his identity and COI issues made me revisit this discussion in which an editor asks him to reveal if he is involved in or plans to become involved in paid editing. His response is three long paragraphs, most of which is not relevant to that question, but in the middle of the third paragraph it says:

If you read many of my statements you hopefully will see I have no vested interest in the outcome except that it remain accurate. To suggest otherwise is a mistake.

Hoping that readers see that you have no vested interest and having no vested interest aren't quite the same thing, so the questioner asks for a less ambiguous reply and is told:

I think I've answered that actually although if you don't trust me I'm unsure why you would trust anything I write.

I actually think Benjiboi does good work in the areas to which he contributes, but these two episodes have eroded his credibility rather badly. I agree with the earlier statement that the attention on his two bios probably arises from his attempts to control the draft guidelines on paid editing which likely caused someone to start digging a little deeper in looking for his motivations.

[Robert Roberts]

Benjiboi's evasive responses to questions about his identity and COI issues made me revisit this discussion in which an editor asks him to reveal if he is involved in or plans to become involved in paid editing. His response is three long paragraphs, most of which is not relevant to that question, but in the middle of the third paragraph it says:

If you read many of my statements you hopefully will see I have no vested interest in the outcome except that it remain accurate. To suggest otherwise is a mistake.

Hoping that readers see that you have no vested interest and having no vested interest aren't quite the same thing, so the questioner asks for a less ambiguous reply and is told:

I think I've answered that actually although if you don't trust me I'm unsure why you would trust anything I write.

I actually think Benjiboi does good work in the areas to which he contributes, but these two episodes have eroded his credibility rather badly. I agree with the earlier statement that the attention on his two bios probably arises from his attempts to control the draft guidelines on paid editing which likely caused someone to start digging a little deeper in looking for his motivations.

I have no problems with paid editing *but* Benji has made a classic mistake, if you don't want to answer a question then don't answer it - the weasel way he phrases his answer screams "I am a paid editor!" regardless of what the truth actually is.

[Peter Damian]

And now Crafty has been blocked for pointing out the obvious

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cra...#September_2009

The ANI discussion is priceless

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...remain_nameless

Crafty for some time was suspected of being Peter Damian for his 'absolute' and uncompromising statements. ("Honest" was perhaps the word they meant). Ikip comes across as a complete idiot.

I have for some time said that Skomorokh is one to watch.

Crafty, regardless of how right you feel you are, this is unneeded harassment of a good-faith contributor to the project. Please remove your comment immediately. Skomorokh 14:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Benji is in violation of WP:COI. If he doesn't want his stuff revealed around the interwebs, he shouldn't write articles about himself on Wikipedia. Crafty (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Your argument has a strong ring of "women who wear revealing clothing and walk down dark alleys at night should expect to be harassed", as if that is a justification for doing the harassing oneself. That comment of yours is ugly and without benefit to the project, no matter how you want to shift the guilt. Skomorokh 14:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

And I respectfully acknowledge your comments. Nevertheless my position is unmoved. Crafty (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I will consider the matter settled, then, barring the input of other editors. Ciao, Skomorokh 14:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Jolly decent of you. Sherry? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Crafty (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If it were any other matter, I would be glad to join you, but I think it would be in rather poor taste considering you're left the chap swinging from the rafters, so to speak. Skomorokh 14:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

But if Crafty is right, how on earth can this be a good faith contributor to the project?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Robert Roberts]

As I said earlier, the only difference here is the length of time, if Benjiboi had rocked up last week, created those articles and then it came out at the AFD, it would have simply been "The account Benjiboi is clearly the subject of the article" and nobody would have blinked.

[Peter Damian]

Even this comment was removed

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=312256403

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=312414779

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[NuclearWarfare]

Even this comment was removed

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=312256403

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=312414779

If you notice, I readded that particular part about 15 minutes after I removed it, and 15 minutes before you posted the above comment.

[Peter Damian]

Even this comment was removed

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=312256403

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=312414779

If you notice, I readded that particular part about 15 minutes after I removed it, and 15 minutes before you posted the above comment.

Sorry I didn't notice. Obviously that makes everything OK and perfectly above board then. I continue to be astonished by the curious inversion of moral values that lives on in Wikipedia. See the first of my signatures below ("Public opinion ...").

As I have pointed out many times, this is all being carefully logged and will some time be documented and written up.

[edit] No one has commented on Skomorokh's peculiar analogy. Is engaging in something fundamentally dishonest - writing not one but two inflated biographies of one's non-notable self, and then lying and obfuscating about it - really like wearing tarty clothes on a night out?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[One]

I really think this should go into BLP so that it isn't indexed.

WR shouldn't be a revenge platform either.

[Peter Damian]

I really think this should go into BLP so that it isn't indexed.

WR shouldn't be a revenge platform either.

No. There is a fundamental difference between somebody else writing an article about me in Wikipedia, which I would not welcome and would take steps to remove, and my writing a promotional an article about myself, and lying about it.

[Robert Roberts]

And now a message from our sponsor

The Bluemarine dramas have run it's course a few times now with what IMHO, seems an enormous amount of community energy for what boils down to a COI editor promoting themself and playing the community for fools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=306063299

[Peter Damian]

And Crafty is now indef'd. Two indefs so far and of course no action on compulsive plagiarists and liars.

The question has to be asked by someone, so I'll do it - how are we going to be managing the COI going forward? We are going to pretend it does not exist? We are all going to hint to each other and edge around the subject? The use of expressive dance? We are going to have to come up with something or this situation is going to keep rolling. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI...remain_nameless

Pretend it does not exist, I suppose.

And if he really is worried about being 'outed', why on earth post a 5 minute video of himself on YouTube?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COpUXdaSOAo

And did Crafty actually violate WP:OUT?

It says:

Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted one's own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia oneself. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OUT...nal_information

1. Of course the user did voluntarily post the information, by writing the two articles.

2. No personal information was included (except by editors such as Ottava and Fences who mentioned the actual name of the pseudonymous characters 'Pusspuss' and 'Sister Kitty'. When I nominated for deletion, I was careful not to mention anything like this.

3. The only offence was to assert that the anonymous individual who goes by the names 'Pusspuss' and 'Sister Kitty', had actually written the articles themself, i.e. to accuse a fellow Wikipedian of dishonesty. How nefarious!

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[MBisanz]

I hope my proposal at ANI is seen as useful to the situation.

[Peter Damian]

I hope my proposal at ANI is seen as useful to the situation.

As follows

I would concur with Lar. As it is currently written, the outing policy protects all parties, the guilty and the innocent, the helpful and the not so helpful, equally. In the interest of encouraging contributions, that is probably the best way to leave the policy. However, I think we could beef up our autobiography and conflict of interest guidelines to better protect the community. Possibly something along the lines of "If you wish to defend a subject you have a conflict of interest to in a Wiki-debate, you waive the protection from outing of the nature of the interest (biography subjects, company relationships, etc), as a matter of fairness to the other participants in the debate." MBisanz talk 19:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be useful. Or something even simpler: if you are asked whether you have a conflict of interest, you must give a straight answer: yes or no. Benji refused to do this.

Actually the existing policy is quite strong: it is strongly discouraged.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AUT..._about_yourself

The proper way to get your own writing about yourself in if you really think you can meet the inclusion criteria and are willing to accept having a neutral, non-promotional article is to make a proposal containing the text you want, instead of just putting it up directly, and seek the consensus of the community through discussion. Not only does this provide independent viewpoints on it that can allow you to discover biases you were not aware of having, it also helps provide an indication of good faith and that you are willing to put the interests of Wikipedia first instead of standing in a position of conflict of interest.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[nableezy]

I think that would be useful. Or something even simpler: if you are asked whether you have a conflict of interest, you must give a straight answer: yes or no. Benji refused to do this.

Actually the existing policy is quite strong: it is strongly discouraged.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AUT..._about_yourself

But perhaps the best punishment is that the user has 2, or 3, BLPs about himself just waiting to be vandalized. I really dont understand why somebody would want an article about themselves on Wikipedia.

[MBisanz]

Actually the existing policy is quite strong: it is strongly discouraged.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AUT..._about_yourself

The proper way to get your own writing about yourself in if you really think you can meet the inclusion criteria and are willing to accept having a neutral, non-promotional article is to make a proposal containing the text you want, instead of just putting it up directly, and seek the consensus of the community through discussion. Not only does this provide independent viewpoints on it that can allow you to discover biases you were not aware of having, it also helps provide an indication of good faith and that you are willing to put the interests of Wikipedia first instead of standing in a position of conflict of interest.

Careful Peter, as anyone in an AFD debate will tell you, that page is only a content guideline, and a policy like outing or a behavioral guideline like conflict of interest would supersede it any day of the week.

[Peter Damian]

Careful Peter, as anyone in an AFD debate will tell you, that page is only a content guideline, and a policy like outing or a behavioral guideline like conflict of interest would supersede it any day of the week.

And indeed 'harassment' trumps even COI:

When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to reveal the identity of other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline on conflict of interest. An editor's conflict of interest is often revealed when that editor discloses a relationship to the subject of the article to which the editor is contributing. Where an editor does not disclose an existing affiliation or other conflict of interest, carefully following Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy may help counteract biased editing.

But as I have pointed out, identifying someone who has a public persona and is already known, as a Wikipedia editor, is not OUTing. Outing is giving personal details about someone who wishes to remain anonymous. If I find that Obama contributes to Wikipedia, and I say this, as that outing? No.

This case is odd in that the article was about a pseudonymous character. But no harm is done in asserting that this character wrote the article about themself in Wikipedia. So long as the real live name or address of the character is not revealed, there is no problem.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Peter Damian]

Endorse the blocks, for the record (do not think anyone would question them, actually... user seemed bound and determined to repeat behavior no matter how many times told to stop). ++Lar: t/c 19:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Surely not. My reading that he was very angry about the obvious injustice of this, and he should have been allowed to cool down. I know what it is like to be afflicted with a temper. An indef was cruel.

There was also a clear suspicion that 'Crafty' was me. He (or she) is certainly not. I do not say things like 'damn your eyes sir'. The very idea.

Give him another chance.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[MBisanz]

Endorse the blocks, for the record (do not think anyone would question them, actually... user seemed bound and determined to repeat behavior no matter how many times told to stop). ++Lar: t/c 19:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Surely not. My reading that he was very angry about the obvious injustice of this, and he should have been allowed to cool down. I know what it is like to be afflicted with a temper. An indef was cruel.

There was also a clear suspicion that 'Crafty' was me. He (or she) is certainly not. I do not say things like 'damn your eyes sir'. The very idea.

Give him another chance.

If I didn't say it here, I could be called a hypocrite, but since Craft isn't asking for an unblock, I don't see why other people have to continue the point by valiantly arguing why he should be unblocked. The intent to be unblocked should be a pre-requisite to a discussion on unblocking.

[Peter Damian]

If I didn't say it here, I could be called a hypocrite, but since Craft isn't asking for an unblock, I don't see why other people have to continue the point by valiantly arguing why he should be unblocked. The intent to be unblocked should be a pre-requisite to a discussion on unblocking.

I'm just saying, leave it at 48 hours, or whatever, and see what happens.

[A Horse With No Name]

I hope my proposal at ANI is seen as useful to the situation.

My goodness, I am reading this ANI and it seems like the same people keep turning up every time the gumbo pot overheats: Tan, of course, is flexing his muscles by swinging his banhammer while perennial troublemakers Ikip, A Nobody, Ottava Rima and Delicious Carbuncle show up for running commentary. (I guess Roux and Baseball Bugs were delivering furniture and couldn't make it to ANI). (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

The only problem with Benji being autobiographical is that he got caught. If I had a dollar for every friend of mine who wrote an article about himself that is still on Wikipedia, I'd be able to buy Lara a leopard skin bikini to wear at her poolside parties. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif)

And, Petey baby, why are you sooooooo interested in big ol' Benji, anyway? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Peter Damian]

My goodness, I am reading this ANI and it seems like the same people keep turning up every time the gumbo pot overheats: Tan, of course, is flexing his muscles by swinging his banhammer while perennial troublemakers Ikip, A Nobody, Ottava Rima and Delicious Carbuncle show up for running commentary. (I guess Roux and Baseball Bugs were delivering furniture and couldn't make it to ANI). (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

The only problem with Benji being autobiographical is that he got caught. If I had a dollar for every friend of mine who wrote an article about himself that is still on Wikipedia, I'd be able to buy Lara a leopard skin bikini to wear at her poolside parties. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif)

And, Petey baby, why are you sooooooo interested in big ol' Benji, anyway? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Unless you have something remotely constructive to say please f--- off. It's about time someone said this.

[A Horse With No Name]

Unless you have something remotely constructive to say please f--- off. It's about time someone said this.

I have something "remotely constructive" to say. If you bothered to read what I wrote:

1. This teapot-based tempest is little more than yet another melodrama stirred by a relative handful of people who inevitably turn up when the slightest bit of mayhem is in the air.

Translation into English: Why does anyone care what these perennial ANI troublemakers are up to? It is always the same crap with them, only the names of the aggrieved parties change. I don't even pay attention to that page anymore unless somewhere here calls it up.

And speaking of perennial idiots, why is Ironholds sticking his nose into this?: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=312198209

2. The only problem with Benji is that he got caught and that I know many people who have written autobiographical articles that remain online.

Translation into English: this is a non-issue. There is a huge list, which I posted earlier, of Wikipedia editors who have articles about themselves online. And for those who don't identify themselves, it is extremely easy to get away with writing autobiographical articles. This circles back to perennial arguments on the lack of BLP enforcement.

3. Why is Petey so interested in Benji?

Translation into English: I am genuinely surprised that you are devoting so much time and energy to a situation that is of very little (if any) value to how Wikipedia functions. And, Petey, why are you agitated over the policy rulings of a web site that does not want your participation? Or, to paraphrase Arbcom's ruling on the nature of your Wikipedia contributions: since you have nothing remotely constructive to say, please f--- off.

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[Grep]

Is it possible that Benji is being thrown to the wolves? That is, that his egregious self-promotion makes him a suitable sacrifice to cover up or divert our attention from some other, shadier dealings somewhere else? If so, what?

[A Horse With No Name]

Is it possible that Benji is being thrown to the wolves? That is, that his egregious self-promotion makes him a suitable sacrifice to cover up or divert our attention from some other, shadier dealings somewhere else? If so, what?

I am kind of curious that Benji, of all people, is getting outed. He has been a non-controversial editor, as far as I can determine, and the articles that are up for AfD could have easily been deleted based on their crappy reference sourcing without the "guess who this guy is?" hullabaloo.

As for a "public persona," Benji's entertainment alter egos are only known to a very small number of gay men in San Francisco. I would wager that if you asked the average hetero San Franciscan about DJ PussPuss, they would say "DJ WhoWho?" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

[Robert Roberts]

To be honest, it seems to kick off after it was mentioned here.

I don't think there is anything sinister beyond the fact that people at wikipedia love drama and this was an excellent opportunity for that.

I think what did not help him was getting involved in the AFDs and referring to his articles in the third person, I think a lot of people saw that as just taking the piss. Moreover, a lot of people simply don't *like* him and that's another good reason for a kick.

[tarantino]

He has been a non-controversial editor ...

Hah!

He describes himself as a propagandist. He's certainly not non-controversial in real life, and arguably not so on a website where his contributions have been read by millions.

This post has been edited by tarantino:

[Tower]

I am kind of curious that Benji, of all people, is getting outed. He has been a non-controversial editor, as far as I can determine, and the articles that are up for AfD could have easily been deleted based on their crappy reference sourcing without the "guess who this guy is?" hullabaloo.

As for a "public persona," Benji's entertainment alter egos are only known to a very small number of gay men in San Francisco. I would wager that if you asked the average hetero San Franciscan about DJ PussPuss, they would say "DJ WhoWho?" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

I think you're right here; plain ol' horse sense!

I think the hand-wringing and drama over COI is way overdone and just used as another stick to beat people with. The only issue should be what's in the article.

[A Horse With No Name]

He describes himself as a propagandist. He's certainly not non-controversial in real life, and arguably not so on a website where his contributions have been read by millions.

Hmmm...and what's it to you, bub? You're the founder of this feast, so what's the story behind the recipe? Why are you see eager to see this particular editor outed? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

(Boy, what a mystery! I better read up on my Nero Wolfe to make sure I can crack this case correctly!)

I think you're right here; plain ol' horse sense!

I love the equine puns. Tower gets a Horsey kiss! Mwah! Mwah! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif)

[Lar]

Endorse the blocks, for the record (do not think anyone would question them, actually... user seemed bound and determined to repeat behavior no matter how many times told to stop). ++Lar: t/c 19:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Surely not. My reading that he was very angry about the obvious injustice of this, and he should have been allowed to cool down. I know what it is like to be afflicted with a temper. An indef was cruel.

No, an indef is "until circumstances change". As long as Crafty vows to keep doing the same disallowed thing, there is no point in unblocking that account. And you know it, you're just working it for the LULZ. Whatev.

I'm just saying, leave it at 48 hours, or whatever, and see what happens.

Say it as Crafty, over there. Or not at all, unless this is "unblock request annex".

3. Why is Petey so interested in Benji?

He's not. He's interested in getting people interested in Crafty which is/isn't him/his sock. Or something.

To be honest, it seems to kick off after it was mentioned here.

A lot of stuff does these days.

[EricBarbour]

So, if it's "acceptable" for Benjiboi to write Wikipedia articles about himself,
under two different aliases, then can I post articles about myself under an alias?
Provided I meet the usual requirements of notability etc?

[A Horse With No Name]

So, if it's "acceptable" for Benjiboi to write Wikipedia articles about himself,
under two different aliases, then can I post articles about myself under an alias?
Provided I meet the usual requirements of notability etc?

And the big caveat: provided that you don't get caught! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[EricBarbour]

So, if it's "acceptable" for Benjiboi to write Wikipedia articles about himself,
under two different aliases, then can I post articles about myself under an alias?
Provided I meet the usual requirements of notability etc?

And the big caveat: provided that you don't get caught! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Well, HE GOT CAUGHT. And admins are popping out of the woodwork to defend him.

That really sucks. An open invitation to systemic abuse. (obviously)

Horse, you're not a gay activist, are you? Because you seem awfully defensive of
Benjiboi in this matter.

Is it possible that Benji is being thrown to the wolves? That is, that his egregious self-promotion makes him a suitable sacrifice to cover up or divert our attention from some other, shadier dealings somewhere else?

I would not be surprised. And we might not ever know what the real issues were.
Because this whole damn business is rapidly being turned into "OMG BAN HIM"
crap about Crafty.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[A Horse With No Name]

Well, HE GOT CAUGHT. And admins are popping out of the woodwork to defend him.

That really sucks. An open invitation to systemic abuse. (obviously)

Horse, you're not a gay activist, are you? Because you seem awfully defensive of
Benjiboi in this matter.

Me, a gay activist? What, do you want me to lose my job as Vice President of the Kat Walsh Fan Club? Nah, Horsey likes the fillies -- and I am still waiting to see those poolside photos of Lara! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

I like Benji because he is a nice guy who does decent work on Wikipedia, and I am surprised to see him getting beat up here. I don't mind when genuine nincompoops like Tan, Aitias, WMC, Guy Chapman, Protonk or Durova get dumped on. They seem to create chaos just by saying "Hello." But Benji doesn't go around making bad blocks or shooting his mouth off or creating trouble. I am curious that he is in the crossfire. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

[Somey]

...Benji doesn't go around making bad blocks or shooting his mouth off or creating trouble. I am curious that he is in the crossfire. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

That's to be expected, if his primary concern is to preserve the articles he's written about himself. This sort of thing is unusual, and it's interesting that multiple WP'ers are defending his supposed right to have not one, but two articles about his alter egos, neither of which mention his real name, in contrast to nearly all other BLP articles about people who operate under real-world pseudonyms.

Benjiboi may be a nice guy, and maybe he even deserves to have two articles about himself (assuming you think that having even one is a good thing). But it's still an extremely good example of how WP'ers are completely hypocritical when it comes to how they treat themselves, as opposed to how they treat others.

Admittedly, hypocrisy (as well as narcissism) is so rampant and pervasive on WP that it almost seems pointless to bring more examples to people's attention... I just wish there were a way to actually reduce the amount, rather than just keep pointing it out. But then they wouldn't have any users left, would they?

[Peter Damian]

Unless you have something remotely constructive to say please f--- off. It's about time someone said this.

I have something "remotely constructive" to say. If you bothered to read what I wrote:

I understood the translation all along. There are people who take Wikipedia seriously, and of those, some think Wikipedia is a very good thing as it stands, others who think it very dangerous. Put me in the latter, in case you were confused.

Then there are those who don't take it seriously, and think it's all a bit of a joke, and why is everyone getting worried and upset. Your contributions strongly suggest you are coming from here.

I like Benji because he is a nice guy who does decent work on Wikipedia, and I am surprised to see him getting beat up here. I don't mind when genuine nincompoops like Tan, Aitias, WMC, Guy Chapman, Protonk or Durova get dumped on. They seem to create chaos just by saying "Hello." But Benji doesn't go around making bad blocks or shooting his mouth off or creating trouble. I am curious that he is in the crossfire. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

1. People who are evasive as he tend to come in my line of fire, if you have noticed.

2. Where is the decent work he has contributed?

So, if it's "acceptable" for Benjiboi to write Wikipedia articles about himself,
under two different aliases, then can I post articles about myself under an alias?
Provided I meet the usual requirements of notability etc?

And the big caveat: provided that you don't get caught! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

You keep coming back to this. "It's OK to do it really". No it's not. People who do this should be open about it to allow for an assessment of neutrality. I also know a few people who have written their own articles. But they are truly notable. Here you have a case of a pathetic nobody writing a promotional piece for their business (as a DJ), plus other numerous pieces of self-publicity, who will not admit the fact. This is not OK.

Note that Benji is being accused elsewhere of writing for money. That is also not OK, at least, when you try to hide the fact.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Tower]

So, if it's "acceptable" for Benjiboi to write Wikipedia articles about himself,
under two different aliases, then can I post articles about myself under an alias?
Provided I meet the usual requirements of notability etc?

Let's say I wrote an article about you. And then you came along and corrected some factual errors, dates say. You're improving it. That's a good thing.

The issue should be what's in the article. If we stuck to that, we'd get rid of a fair bit of drama.

[Robert Roberts]

Cameron Scott now seems to be going after the main SOPI article, I don't think he's going to try and AFD it but he looks like he's gearing up to scrub Benji from it (who's only managed to upload and add two photos of themselves in that article - must have been having an off-day).

Simon Speed offer an interesting theory for the reasons behind this recent activity, it's a "SF gay mafia conspiracy". (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

Then there are those who don't take it seriously, and think it's all a bit of a joke, and why is everyone getting worried and upset. Your contributions strongly suggest you are coming from here.

Of course, it is a bit of a joke. Really, is this a serious academic publishing institution where learned scholars gather to offer the best writing, the best research and the most comprehensive guide to every imaginable subject under the sun? Or this a free web site where teenagers run around blocking each other, loose cannon personalities have nervous breakdowns in public, people hold seven-day debates on the encyclopedic notability of garage bands, and alleged adults have knockdown fights over whether the death of Ted Kennedy can be considered newsworthy? Why should I take Wikipedia seriously...I would be marching to a very different drum if I did. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

You keep coming back to this. "It's OK to do it really". No it's not. People who do this should be open about it to allow for an assessment of neutrality. I also know a few people who have written their own articles. But they are truly notable. Here you have a case of a pathetic nobody writing a promotional piece for their business (as a DJ), plus other numerous pieces of self-publicity, who will not admit the fact. This is not OK.

Hey, cool down, Petey! I am no stranger to finding fault with people, but even I would never call someone a "pathetic nobody."

Remember, this is not real life -- this is Wikipedia. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

But it's still an extremely good example of how WP'ers are completely hypocritical when it comes to how they treat themselves, as opposed to how they treat others.

Well, to quote Benny Hill: do unto others and run. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[KD Tries Again]

There are countless WP articles on minor and very minor celebrities which are evidently written either by the subject or by a publicist if they can afford one. These articles may have a veneer of factual content, but they are entirely promotional in nature: they are ads.

As with most problems on WP, the reason is that there is no editorial (in the original sense of the word) control over content. The only available solutions are for the community to police these articles in perpetuity, reverting promotional language to neutral language, or demonstrate a COI - which - as is rightly pointed out above - is almost impossible under the current outing rules.

[carbuncle]

So, if it's "acceptable" for Benjiboi to write Wikipedia articles about himself,
under two different aliases, then can I post articles about myself under an alias?
Provided I meet the usual requirements of notability etc?

Let's say I wrote an article about you. And then you came along and corrected some factual errors, dates say. You're improving it. That's a good thing.

The issue should be what's in the article. If we stuck to that, we'd get rid of a fair bit of drama.

You seem to be forgetting one of Wikipedia's best features - if the dates are wrong, you can't just change them because you know better, you have to source them to the incredibly flexible definition of a "reliable source". If someone has a better source for your incorrect birth date, sorry, you are out of luck.

Besides, this wasn't fixing inaccuracies, this was creating not one, but two vanity articles about himself where none previously existed. Let's not even start on [[San Francisco Bay Times]] which Benjamin Holmann wrote for...

[A Horse With No Name]

There are countless WP articles on minor and very minor celebrities which are evidently written either by the subject or by a publicist if they can afford one. These articles may have a veneer of factual content, but they are entirely promotional in nature: they are ads.

As with most problems on WP, the reason is that there is no editorial (in the original sense of the word) control over content. The only available solutions are for the community to police these articles in perpetuity, reverting promotional language to neutral language, or demonstrate a COI - which - as is rightly pointed out above - is almost impossible under the current outing rules.

This is a structural defect that was built into Wikipedia and never fixed.

I always prefer the IMDb model, where you have to identify your affiliation with the material being submitted and where all material is reviewed by a paid staff before it gets published. I never understood why Jimbo never followed that example.

[Eva Destruction]

I always prefer the IMDb model, where you have to identify your affiliation with the material being submitted and where all material is reviewed by a paid staff before it gets published. I never understood why Jimbo never followed that example.

Because Wikipedia's model traditionally relied on reverts and minor changes to generate traffic and boost its claim to be the one of the most visited sites on the web, during the early years. Now it's in the Maintenance Phase, the focus shifts to flagged revisions, semi-protection and all the other ways to lock out the useful idiots who propelled it to prominence, without making things too difficult and killing the goose that lays Jimmy's golden eggs.

Do I win a prize?

[Alison]

David Shankbone says merge to [[Benjamin Holman]].

Holy outtages, Batman!! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Peter Damian]

David Shankbone says merge to [[Benjamin Holman]].

Holy outtages, Batman!! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

That is far more outrageous than anything 'Crafty' did (merely outing one pseudonym as another).

3. Why is Petey so interested in Benji?

He's not. He's interested in getting people interested in Crafty which is/isn't him/his sock. Or something.

Don't be an idiot. Does this
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ion&namespace=0

really look like a Damian sock. Attempt by Cabal member to discredit Damian noted, however. As noted before here, I have never reverted a single instance of genuine vandalism in my editing career (as opposed to edits by well-meaning idiots, or cranks, or vested interests).

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[A Horse With No Name]

Do I win a prize?

How about an all-expenses-paid romantic weekend with Newyorkbrad at the beautiful Mardi Gras Motel, located just two blocks away from the Boardwalk in Atlantic City? Hot water and HBO included in the room. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

David Shankbone says merge to [[Benjamin Holman]].

Shankbone wants to merge with Benji? Oh dear, this kind of ribald talk is totally inappropriate for a family-friendly web site. Think of the effects it will have on the kids! Quick, someone cover Juliancolton's eyes before he reads this! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Does this
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ion&namespace=0

really look like a Damian sock.

I dunno, Mr. Fudd...what does a Damian sock look like? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

[Deodand]

So edit-warring to restore outed information is blockable when Crafty does it, but indirectly inserting the outed information is fine, provided it's done by Shankers?

[Robert Roberts]

It's laughable - I think that edit is considered fine because he hasn't taken the addition step of explictly saying "oh and that is user Benjiboi". Even at this stage, people are trying to maintain the idea that there is an account to out - that happened days ago!

[Deodand]

It's laughable - I think that edit is considered fine because he hasn't taken the addition step of explictly saying "oh and that is user Benjiboi". Even at this stage, people are trying to maintain the idea that there is an account to out - that happened days ago!

Everyone bloody knows by now! That's like the British government now deciding to take steps to cover up the Falklands Conflict.

[Peter Damian]

I dunno, Mr. Fudd...what does a Damian sock look like? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

Read carefully the explanation in the post.

It's laughable - I think that edit is considered fine because he hasn't taken the addition step of explictly saying "oh and that is user Benjiboi". Even at this stage, people are trying to maintain the idea that there is an account to out - that happened days ago!

Interesting also there is no concern about a genuine danger. The personae in question (the DJ and the 'nun') presumably keep their real name private because it is easily linked to an address and telephone number. That is of course no concern to Wikipedians. The real concern is that the name should be linked to an anonyous account - which contains no real world information to speak of.

Another example of the upside down moral world of Wikipedians.

[Deodand]

I dunno, Mr. Fudd...what does a Damian sock look like? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

Read carefully the explanation in the post.

It's laughable - I think that edit is considered fine because he hasn't taken the addition step of explictly saying "oh and that is user Benjiboi". Even at this stage, people are trying to maintain the idea that there is an account to out - that happened days ago!

Interesting also there is no concern about a genuine danger. The personae in question (the DJ and the 'nun') presumably keep their real name private because it is easily linked to an address and telephone number. That is of course no concern to Wikipedians. The real concern is that the name should be linked to an anonyous account - which contains no real world information to speak of.

Another example of the upside down moral world of Wikipedians.

Ahh, but you don't see. If it was to be known that that person used Wikipedia - what a scandal! The idea that an unknown, nun-loving genderfuck DJ should tarnish his good name by editing Wikipedia!

[Somey]

Ahh, but you don't see. If it was to be known that that person used Wikipedia - what a scandal! The idea that an unknown, nun-loving genderfuck DJ should tarnish his good name by editing Wikipedia!

The infamy!

This is nothing new, of course - WP'ers have a long history of this sort of thing. They want to believe that "editing" is a dangerous, personally risky activity, because that affirms their collective self-image as revolutionaries and iconoclasts. Maintaining their own privacy is paramount, because illusory "IRL threats" could get in the way of their vital mission to destroy whatever's left of academic and journalistic tradition.

Meanwhile, everyone else can go stuff it - "privacy is a quaint and antiquated notion" for anybody who fits someone's arbitrary definition of "notable," as JoshuaZ or Shankers might say.

[Deodand]

Ahh, but you don't see. If it was to be known that that person used Wikipedia - what a scandal! The idea that an unknown, nun-loving genderfuck DJ should tarnish his good name by editing Wikipedia!

The infamy!

This is nothing new, of course - WP'ers have a long history of this sort of thing. They want to believe that "editing" is a dangerous, personally risky activity, because that affirms their collective self-image as revolutionaries and iconoclasts. Maintaining their own privacy is paramount, because illusory "IRL threats" could get in the way of their vital mission to destroy whatever's left of academic and journalistic tradition.

Meanwhile, everyone else can go stuff it - "privacy is a quaint and antiquated notion" for anybody who fits someone's arbitrary definition of "notable," as JoshuaZ or Shankers might say.

Ahh, but you're missing the point. You see, "notable" people aren't "important" people. "important" people edit Wikipedia - that's why personal and libelous information about "notable" people is fine (until it affects the "important" people) but any possible threat to "important" people is a heinous crime. Until something affects the "important" people enough to shock them out of their narcissistic little daydream (y'know, that fun one where they're the ruler of the world and everyone does what they say? That one) it's not going to be noticed or dealt with. Of course, once it's been noticed, they'll move heaven and earth to protect their incredibly important real life and the valuable work they do as a legal secretary, or owner of a comic book shop, or part-time DJ on benefits, or something.

[Somey]

...You see, "notable" people aren't "important" people. "important" people edit Wikipedia - that's why personal and libelous information about "notable" people is fine (until it affects the "important" people) but any possible threat to "important" people is a heinous crime. Until something affects the "important" people enough to shock them out of their narcissistic little daydream (y'know, that fun one where they're the ruler of the world and everyone does what they say? That one) it's not going to be noticed or dealt with.

Mr. Deodand, I can already see you're going to have a bright future with us here at WR! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Pretty soon, I'll be able to retire...

Nevertheless, we probably are making a bit too much of this particular incident - Shankers has a well-known proclivity for identifying people, particularly LGBT folks like himself (though we can only guess why), and it's a known fact that they can't, or won't, ban him - I guess they're afraid of him somehow. Regardless, I doubt that the majority of people voting in these AfD's are particularly interested in making an example of Mr. Holmann, privacy-wise - it actually looks like most of them seem to think both articles should be deleted, or at least fall into the "deletable" category. So, at the risk of sounding overly pro-WP, perhaps we should be focusing more on the wisdom of what appears to be the majority, at least in this case.

[Deodand]

...You see, "notable" people aren't "important" people. "important" people edit Wikipedia - that's why personal and libelous information about "notable" people is fine (until it affects the "important" people) but any possible threat to "important" people is a heinous crime. Until something affects the "important" people enough to shock them out of their narcissistic little daydream (y'know, that fun one where they're the ruler of the world and everyone does what they say? That one) it's not going to be noticed or dealt with.

Mr. Deodand, I can already see you're going to have a bright future with us here at WR! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Pretty soon, I'll be able to retire...

Nevertheless, we probably are making a bit too much of this particular incident - Shankers has a well-known proclivity for identifying people, particularly LGBT folks like himself (though we can only guess why), and it's a known fact that they can't, or won't, ban him - I guess they're afraid of him somehow. Regardless, I doubt that the majority of people voting in these AfD's are particularly interested in making an example of Mr. Holmann, privacy-wise - it actually looks like most of them seem to think both articles should be deleted, or at least fall into the "deletable" category. So, at the risk of sounding overly pro-WP, perhaps we should be focusing more on the wisdom of what appears to be the majority, at least in this case.

But do they want to delete them because:
1) they're deletable content
2) it somehow protects Benjiboi
3) they consider Benjiboi to be both a metaphorical and possibly literal gimp?

[carbuncle]

It's laughable - I think that edit is considered fine because he hasn't taken the addition step of explictly saying "oh and that is user Benjiboi". Even at this stage, people are trying to maintain the idea that there is an account to out - that happened days ago!

And then there's this:

It is completely pointless at this stage to pretend that we are not discussing Benjiboi and I have started a conflict of interest discussion over at COI to co-ordinate article checking. Their first edits were promotional/COI so there is potention that we have three years worth of edits that have COI/promotional material hidden within and overlooked because they were a respected and trusted member of this community. Pretending this identity is not out there is a complete denial of reality. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

[Somey]

But do they want to delete them because:
1) they're deletable content
2) it somehow protects Benjiboi
3) they consider Benjiboi to be both a metaphorical and possibly literal gimp?

All three, IMO. Particularly the last - I apologize if this makes me seem like a homophobic gay-bashing bigot and all, but now that it's known that Benjiboi is essentially a drag queen, then regardless of the legitimacy of his record as a social and political activist, he's a potential public embarrassment. Clearly not someone they'd want to be known as a "prominent Wikipedian." (They've got enough of that with Dave Gerard!) The key thing is to get rid of the articles before the media picks up on the story... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Still, just to clarify my own views on situations like this, I'd like to think I'm charitable enough to believe that there are people on WP - probably including several who are voting in this particular AfD - who honestly believe in high content standards, respect for privacy, and even-handedness with respect to the user self-promotion issue. But even if those people are a tiny minority, at least the consensus opinion in this case is to do something that resembles The Right Thing™, and those people - regardless of motivation - should be commended for it, IMO. That doesn't take away from the fact that most of them probably wouldn't care enough to lift a finger if Benjiboi weren't an established WP'er, but... ehh, you just have to expect that, I suppose.

It's all about the drahmahz!

[Tower]

So, if it's "acceptable" for Benjiboi to write Wikipedia articles about himself,
under two different aliases, then can I post articles about myself under an alias?
Provided I meet the usual requirements of notability etc?

Let's say I wrote an article about you. And then you came along and corrected some factual errors, dates say. You're improving it. That's a good thing.

The issue should be what's in the article. If we stuck to that, we'd get rid of a fair bit of drama.

You seem to be forgetting one of Wikipedia's best features - if the dates are wrong, you can't just change them because you know better, you have to source them to the incredibly flexible definition of a "reliable source". If someone has a better source for your incorrect birth date, sorry, you are out of luck.

Besides, this wasn't fixing inaccuracies, this was creating not one, but two vanity articles about himself where none previously existed. Let's not even start on [[San Francisco Bay Times]] which Benjamin Holmann wrote for...

No I'm not forgetting that - my point is that Wikipedians should be debating the quality of what is and isn't in the article - who is writing what shouldn't matter. If someone fixes dates or even creates an article and it's notable, verifiable, well written, good citations... it shouldn't matter whether it's me or you or whoever who did it.

The heart of most issues at Wikipedia, in my opinion, is the infantile personality politics, and the personalising of every issue. A start for dealing with it is to have every policy aimed directly at the quality of the articles.

[Robert Roberts]

but two vanity articles about himself

and inserting big pictures of himself in a third (which are still there).

[Deodand]

but two vanity articles about himself

and inserting big pictures of himself in a third (which are still there).

Indeed. That article should probably be cleaned up.

[EricBarbour]

Okay, let's see.

AFD for Sister Kitty.: currently 10 to delete, 4 keep, 2 to merge.

AFD for Pusspuss: 11 delete, 3 keep, 2 merge, and a whole lot of insipid and unproven bullshit about Land Surveyor being a sock of Damian.

Sorry Benji, FAIL.

Fences and windows (T-C-L-K-R-D) , you are an asshole. Just BTW.

[tarantino]

40 new members have joined WR since this thread started Saturday, compared with about 15 in the previous 5 weeks. I suppose it could be a random fluctuation, or maybe a backlog that was cleaned up.

[nableezy]

Fences and windows (T-C-L-K-R-D) , you are an asshole. Just BTW.

Naw, just a normal wikipedia editor, more concerned with "the process" than getting shit done

[Peter Damian]

Poor Benji has had another of his articles nominated for deletion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...2nd_nomination)

The link provided by Cameron is interesting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Slut_Night#uh...

Do we have a complete list of Benji's articles? A few people were trying to defend him on the grounds of the quality of his contributions, when it seems so far that everything he has written is unsourced, promotional and poorly written.

[MBisanz]

Poor Benji has had another of his articles nominated for deletion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...2nd_nomination)

The link provided by Cameron is interesting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Slut_Night#uh...

Do we have a complete list of Benji's articles? A few people were trying to defend him on the grounds of the quality of his contributions, when it seems so far that everything he has written is unsourced, promotional and poorly written.

It may be a few days out of date given the TS database, but http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pages/inde...cts=noredirects is probably the most useful thing out there.

[A Horse With No Name]

Say, do any of you guys actually find Benji attractive? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Peter Damian]

I spotted this AfD, it looks like some editors are going through the articles you created and worked on. For this article, there's nothing I can do to rescue it; the main/only sources are primary sources, as Slut Night was an invention of Butch-Femme.com. On the other hand, if you can find enough reliable sources on Butch-Femme.com, e.g. [39], you could write an article about that website, and mention Slut Nights in a section. That's a mergist approach. Fences&Windows 16:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Benjiboi

Thus

1. Some bad people are deleting your nice article

2. Unfortunately even I can see the article is crap.

Someone earlier in this thread said the problem was the personalisation of article writing, and that the only solution was to make article quality article improvement a focal point of policy, that trumps all else. Good point.

[Grep]

So Scarykitty (T-C-L-K-R-D) has leapt into action to protect Slut Night, another confection of Benjiboi (T-C-L-K-R-D) . If the equation Benji = DJ Pusspuss = Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P. holds, how likely is it that Sister Kitty = Scarykitty, leading to the interesting conclusion that Scarykitty is a sock of Benjiboi.

I think we should be told.

[Peter Damian]

So Scarykitty (T-C-L-K-R-D) has leapt into action to protect Slut Night, another confection of Benjiboi (T-C-L-K-R-D) . If the equation Benji = DJ Pusspuss = Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P. holds, how likely is it that Sister Kitty = Scarykitty, leading to the interesting conclusion that Scarykitty is a sock of Benjiboi.

I think we should be told.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slut Night (2nd nomination). From the history, it looks like Banjiboi did a ton of work to get it up to encyclopedic standards, so not sure if something has changed in the article. Scarykitty (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone went through all the sources and found some problems in a good article reassessment and that is why it's being listed for AfD. Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Slut Night/1. Scarykitty (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The sources are shit and the only decent ones are used to provided contextual background information about queer concepts and say nothing about the subject of the article. The pattern of editing by certain departed editors is becoming sadly very clear, we have a raft of articles that has been superficially sourced with crap, on (what appears to me) the grounds that most people will simply look at the number and the names and never check what they actually say. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the obsession of 24.22.141.252 with Benjiboi, isn't it likely this is Peter Damien once again? Fences&Windows 19:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=312772226

Wrong again.


This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[don fugazi]

So Scarykitty (T-C-L-K-R-D) has leapt into action to protect Slut Night, another confection of Benjiboi (T-C-L-K-R-D) . If the equation Benji = DJ Pusspuss = Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P. holds, how likely is it that Sister Kitty = Scarykitty, leading to the interesting conclusion that Scarykitty is a sock of Benjiboi.

I think we should be told.

The equation holds.

Scarykitty = v likely

[dtobias]

Say, do any of you guys actually find Benji attractive? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

The editor or the movie dog?

[tarantino]

Hmmm...and what's it to you, bub?

It's nothing personal Horsey. I'm highlighting the flaws inherent in Wikipedia, and hopefully discouraging some future participants.

Be sure to catch the sequel, coming soon to a theater near you.

[A Horse With No Name]

Say, do any of you guys actually find Benji attractive? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

The editor or the movie dog?

Awww, the doggie is a cutie. Nice to know people still remember that film. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Hmmm...and what's it to you, bub?

It's nothing personal Horsey. I'm highlighting the flaws inherent in Wikipedia, and hopefully discouraging some future participants.

Be sure to catch the sequel, coming soon to a theater near you.

Eh, I stopped going to the movies -- too much junk and too expensive. Besides, the comedies and dramas here are much more entertaining. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

So Scarykitty (T-C-L-K-R-D) has leapt into action to protect Slut Night, another confection of Benjiboi (T-C-L-K-R-D) . If the equation Benji = DJ Pusspuss = Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P. holds, how likely is it that Sister Kitty = Scarykitty, leading to the interesting conclusion that Scarykitty is a sock of Benjiboi.

I think we should be told.

The equation holds.

Scarykitty = v likely

Hmmm...Scarykitty started in 2004 with a focus on UK stuff. Benji came in 2006 with a focus on...well, on Benji (no nice way around it). Is there any reason why Scarykitty would need Benji as a sock? For AfD vote stacking or other disruptions? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

[Deodand]

Hmmm...Scarykitty started in 2004 with a focus on UK stuff. Benji came in 2006 with a focus on...well, on Benji (no nice way around it). Is there any reason why Scarykitty would need Benji as a sock? For AfD vote stacking or other disruptions? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

http://toolserver.org/~bjweeks/cgi-bin/wik...+&user=Benjiboi shows a lot of intersection, but then they're both interested in the same area. I'm sure there are members of milhist that would come up with similar results if compared to me, for the same reason. The edits that the two have made at the same page don't intersect timewise, as expected. Scarykitty's comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art.../Ohm_Phanphiroj is a bit odd - not knowing what GNG refers to after five years? An attempt by Scarykitty/Benjiboi to "seperate" the two users by implying a difference in knowledge and therefore a difference in personality?

This post has been edited by Deodand:

[One]

The equation holds.

Scarykitty = v likely

Hmmm...Scarykitty started in 2004 with a focus on UK stuff. Benji came in 2006 with a focus on...well, on Benji (no nice way around it). Is there any reason why Scarykitty would need Benji as a sock? For AfD vote stacking or other disruptions? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Horsey wins this one.

In the previous vote, the DJ Pusspuss article got some support from Benji's Wikiproject. I suspect that's all it is.

[A Horse With No Name]

Horsey wins this one.

Awww, thanks! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif)

[Robert Roberts]

This could get interesting - it looked like Benjiboi had left the building but they have just popped up, I wonder how they are going to play it

1) Refuse to discuss it

2) Claim that they will be the victim of hate crime if they discuss it

3) blame it on homophobia

4) other?

[Deodand]

This could get interesting - it looked like Benjiboi had left the building but they have just popped up, I wonder how they are going to play it

1) Refuse to discuss it

2) Claim that they will be the victim of hate crime if they discuss it

3) blame it on homophobia

4) other?

you forgot option 5) all of the above

[Robert Roberts]

Him and Cameron Scott are edging towards a big ding-dong. The crux of the defence is

1) The wikipedia review started this

2) What COI? nobody has confirmed my identity.

3) Shadowy forces are out to get me and tried to get me to me to stop editing WP:PAID.

[carbuncle]

This could get interesting - it looked like Benjiboi had left the building but they have just popped up, I wonder how they are going to play it

1) Refuse to discuss it

2) Claim that they will be the victim of hate crime if they discuss it

3) blame it on homophobia

4) other?

I don't understand the "hate crime" claim that's been floated by Benjiboi in relation to his identity. He writes in his own name, Benji Holmann, for gay newspapers. He is openly part of LGBT community organizations. Clearly he isn't concerned that his real life identity leaves him open to hate crimes.

On WP, he identifies as openly gay and focuses on LGBT areas, so he can't be concerned that someone will target him because of that.

As Sister Kitty etc he is in makeup and nun drag. I don't think the Catholic church is sending hitmen.

The "hate crime" claim seems completely baseless to me. What am I missing here?

[Robert Roberts]

This could get interesting - it looked like Benjiboi had left the building but they have just popped up, I wonder how they are going to play it

1) Refuse to discuss it

2) Claim that they will be the victim of hate crime if they discuss it

3) blame it on homophobia

4) other?

I don't understand the "hate crime" claim that's been floated by Benjiboi in relation to his identity. He writes in his own name, Benji Holmann, for gay newspapers. He is openly part of LGBT community organizations. Clearly he isn't concerned that his real life identity leaves him open to hate crimes.

On WP, he identifies as openly gay and focuses on LGBT areas, so he can't be concerned that someone will target him because of that.

As Sister Kitty etc he is in makeup and nun drag. I don't think the Catholic church is sending hitmen.

The "hate crime" claim seems completely baseless to me. What am I missing here?

Beat me too - he leaves a trial of evidence across the web that links all of those identities together, so if he's worried about his real-world identity it's not something that has concerned him previously.

[MBisanz]

Benjiboi's biggest weaknesses were the topic and manner in which he edited. He edited a vaguely non-mainstream topic area, so he did not have a cohort of powerful friends with an interest in defending him.

And, he also did not get himself into a position where he could at least scare off others from going after his articles. Just last night I ran across an admin who has inserted over 100 references to his blog in articles and admits to owning the blog on his userpage.

So I think WR has done everything productive it can on the Benji matter (getting people to review the articles) and is now just pestering the unlucky fellow.

This post has been edited by MBisanz:

[Robert Roberts]

Benjiboi's biggest weaknesses were the topic and manner in which he edited. He edited a vaguely non-mainstream topic area, so he did not have a cohort of powerful friends with an interest in defending him.

And, he also did not get himself into a position where he could at least scare off others from going after his articles. Just last night I ran across an admin who has inserted over 100 references to his blog in articles and admits to owning the blog on his userpage.

So I think WR has done everything productive it can on the Benji matter (getting people to review the articles) and is now just pestering the unlucky fellow.

Unlucky? He's still editing articles about himself - any number of people would have blocked or asked to stop at this stage - I can't see any sign that any administrators have even approached him about the matter. How is that not a double standard that needs to be discussed. I see foot soldiers kicking up a fuss but the administrators are completely silence on the matter.

[KD Tries Again]

Peter, you certainly do have time on your hands. I wasn't aware of your interest in female bass guitarists and Ugg boots. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[CharlotteWebb]

Just last night I ran across an admin who has inserted over 100 references to his blog in articles and admits to owning the blog on his userpage.

Yikes. You should do something about that, seriously. Or at least open a separate thread about it.

[MBisanz]

Just last night I ran across an admin who has inserted over 100 references to his blog in articles and admits to owning the blog on his userpage.

Yikes. You should do something about that, seriously. Or at least open a separate thread about it.

Well, let's look at my options.

If I open a WR thread on him, people at WP will say I am using WR to harass him, since there is nothing preventing me from making the statement on WP (CHL and NYB have said as much in the past I think). But WR tends to be more effective at investigating admin conduct issues than WP:AN, since there are so few people willing to publicly challenge other admins (I've taken on eight admins, six successfully, so I can speak from experience here).

Of course this admin is associated with a weighty Wikiproject, so even if I could get traction at WP:AN, it is likely I would make a large number of enemies and given that Arbcom has rarely heard or penalized the issue of self promotion, it would be a large cost with low chance of success.

Also, this admin lives about 20 miles from me according to his userpage, so it is conceivable that I would run into him at a meetup, and I generally try to avoid making enemies of people I will have to see in real life.

I suppose I could remove a couple of the most egregious instances of the links (I checked with a couple other admins I trust and they agree it is inappropriate promotion) and hope someone is following my edits, but there is still some cost and I have another issue that I know will result in enemies that I am also working on at the moment.

So I am still contemplating what to do.

[carbuncle]

Just last night I ran across an admin who has inserted over 100 references to his blog in articles and admits to owning the blog on his userpage.

Yikes. You should do something about that, seriously. Or at least open a separate thread about it.

Well, let's look at my options.

If I open a WR thread on him, people at WP will say I am using WR to harass him, since there is nothing preventing me from making the statement on WP (CHL and NYB have said as much in the past I think). But WR tends to be more effective at investigating admin conduct issues than WP:AN, since there are so few people willing to publicly challenge other admins (I've taken on eight admins, six successfully, so I can speak from experience here).

Of course this admin is associated with a weighty Wikiproject, so even if I could get traction at WP:AN, it is likely I would make a large number of enemies and given that Arbcom has rarely heard or penalized the issue of self promotion, it would be a large cost with low chance of success.

Also, this admin lives about 20 miles from me according to his userpage, so it is conceivable that I would run into him at a meetup, and I generally try to avoid making enemies of people I will have to see in real life.

I suppose I could remove a couple of the most egregious instances of the links (I checked with a couple other admins I trust and they agree it is inappropriate promotion) and hope someone is following my edits, but there is still some cost and I have another issue that I know will result in enemies that I am also working on at the moment.

So I am still contemplating what to do.

I suggest you go back in time, decide not to mention it here, and then send a private message to any one of several people here who would post it without mention of you at all.

[Peter Damian]

This could get interesting - it looked like Benjiboi had left the building but they have just popped up, I wonder how they are going to play it

1) Refuse to discuss it

2) Claim that they will be the victim of hate crime if they discuss it

3) blame it on homophobia

4) other?

'Other' - namely Wikipedia Review. A long rant on here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ral_moral_panic

Cabal ... Wikipedia Review...plot to get me ... Wikipedia Review ... baiting and harrassment ... banned users at Wikipedia Review (continued p. 94)

This is all good stuff and absolutely guaranteed to work.

[edit] However as a thought-experiment pretend this is a politician who is giving reasons not for declaring a possible conflict of interest, or a businessman who refuses to declare an outside interest to his own compliance department. Such reasons as given by B would not be taken seriously. And ask yourself WHY they would not be taken seriously, and ask if the Wikipedia case is any different. To help, think in terms of how much you would have to pay Google to get your business name onto the 'paid links' section on the right. Think also how much more you would pay NOT to be in that section, where it is obvious you are advertising, but in another section which is supposedly by a voluntary organisation which has a team of volunteers who strive to maintain neutrality. Quite a lot of money, I would have thought.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[One]

Is he implying that his WP:PAID opponents are behind this? It seems very strange to me that he weaves into a narrative about that proposal and how he now frames it as destined to fail without him.

[CharlotteWebb]

If I open a WR thread on him, people at WP will say I am using WR to harass him, since there is nothing preventing me from making the statement on WP (CHL and NYB have said as much in the past I think). But WR tends to be more effective at investigating admin conduct issues than WP:AN, since there are so few people willing to publicly challenge other admins (I've taken on eight admins, six successfully, so I can speak from experience here).

Of course this admin is associated with a weighty Wikiproject, so even if I could get traction at WP:AN, it is likely I would make a large number of enemies and given that Arbcom has rarely heard or penalized the issue of self promotion, it would be a large cost with low chance of success.

Also, this admin lives about 20 miles from me according to his userpage, so it is conceivable that I would run into him at a meetup, and I generally try to avoid making enemies of people I will have to see in real life.

I suppose I could remove a couple of the most egregious instances of the links (I checked with a couple other admins I trust and they agree it is inappropriate promotion) and hope someone is following my edits, but there is still some cost and I have another issue that I know will result in enemies that I am also working on at the moment.

Ah well you'd probably fare best to sit on your fat can and do nothing (until after the arbcom election at least). Carbuncle has the right idea.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[Robert Roberts]

Is he implying that his WP:PAID opponents are behind this? It seems very strange to me that he weaves into a narrative about that proposal and how he now frames it as destined to fail without him.

Now saying Will Beback is one of the ringmasters:

For those missing the reading between the lines, this is one of the three editors who has systematically tried to ban/block me off WP:PAID and the one who sent me the veiled threat to my email.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=313027489

This post has been edited by Robert Roberts:

[CharlotteWebb]

To help, think in terms of how much you would have to pay Google to get your business name onto the 'paid links' section on the right.

Depends on whether the customers you're looking for are or are not the ones who have that section ad-blocked.

[Somey]

So I am still contemplating what to do.

I suggest you go back in time, decide not to mention it here, and then send a private message to any one of several people here who would post it without mention of you at all.

Carbuncle is wise. You should listen to Carbuncle. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

This approach has been used with some success in the past - it doesn't happen all that often IMO, but most (if not all) of the WR regulars and moderators will respect your wish not to be directly involved, and leave your name out of it, even if they happen to have some personal animosity towards you. In this case, I myself probably would have posted it, though I'm usually one of the least likely among the regulars to "proxy" for people.

As for going back in time, that might not be so easy - but I could split the relevant posts out to somewhere private, then we could wait 2-3 weeks for everyone to forget the whole thing ever happened...?


EDIT: Done! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[MBisanz]

So I am still contemplating what to do.

I suggest you go back in time, decide not to mention it here, and then send a private message to any one of several people here who would post it without mention of you at all.

Carbuncle is wise. You should listen to Carbuncle. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

This approach has been used with some success in the past - it doesn't happen all that often IMO, but most (if not all) of the WR regulars and moderators will respect your wish not to be directly involved, and leave your name out of it, even if they happen to have some personal animosity towards you. In this case, I myself probably would have posted it, though I'm usually one of the least likely among the regulars to "proxy" for people.

As for going back in time, that might not be so easy - but I could split the relevant posts out to somewhere private, then we could wait 2-3 weeks for everyone to forget the whole thing ever happened...?


EDIT: Done! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Thanks, but I decided to go ahead and put my money where my mouth was (doing otherwise would be unnecessarily deceptive), so my recent edits should reflect things rather well.

[Somey]

Thanks, but I decided to go ahead and put my money where my mouth was (doing otherwise would be unnecessarily deceptive), so my recent edits should reflect things rather well.

Undone! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)


I see, you're talking about SchuminWeb (T-C-L-K-R-D) , aren't you? Yes, someone should definitely start a thread about that guy. Maybe I will later, if someone else doesn't beat me to it - you'd think a completely self-serving username like that wouldn't even have gotten past the WP:NAME restrictions, much less made it all the way to adminship.

Right now, though, I have to go buy some heat-sink paste for a notebook computer I'm trying to fix - I'm pretty sure the CPU burned out sue to a clogged exhaust fan (which was full of pet hair, apparently). You can't forget the heat-sink paste!

[Peter Damian]

As I said earlier:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=192831

There is no Wikipedia Review conspiracy that I can see. It was probably one of those three editors who contacted Tarantino, who then opened this thread. The Land Surveyor sock was mine (which I never hid) - I had little to do with Benjiboi before. The COI was so obvious and so blatant that I nominated the article for deletion.

User 'Crafty' and the anon are nothing to do with me, although Lar has tried to poison the well about that.

[Lar]

User 'Crafty' and the anon are nothing to do with me, although Lar has tried to poison the well about that.

methinks thou doth protest too much. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

You're usually so proud of your socks and stunts and suchlike that you'll forgive me, I'm sure. I can't be arsed to actually keep a scorecard, mind you.

[No one of consequence]

User 'Crafty' and the anon are nothing to do with me, although Lar has tried to poison the well about that.

methinks thou doth protest too much. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

You're usually so proud of your socks and stunts and suchlike that you'll forgive me, I'm sure. I can't be arsed to actually keep a scorecard, mind you.

Damian's socks are a matter of principle. He even uses the same Kafka quote on the user pages.

[RMHED]

User 'Crafty' and the anon are nothing to do with me, although Lar has tried to poison the well about that.

methinks thou doth protest too much. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

You're usually so proud of your socks and stunts and suchlike that you'll forgive me, I'm sure. I can't be arsed to actually keep a scorecard, mind you.

Damian's socks are a matter of principle. He even uses the same Kafka quote on the user pages.

Principles are principal. To lack principal principles in the 'pedia principality is principally unprincipled.

[Peter Damian]

methinks thou doth protest too much. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

You're usually so proud of your socks and stunts and suchlike that you'll forgive me, I'm sure. I can't be arsed to actually keep a scorecard, mind you.

You misuse that phrase (Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222–230). It means that someone who is telling the truth will so rather plainly and shortly. Liars go on rather more. I simply said (following Lar's allegation) that these were not my socks.

As Thatcher has observed, my socks come with a label. They are also a matter of principle. I strongly disapprove of abusive socking, as Lar should know.

Smalbones comments at ANI are fair and to the point.

It’s of course fairly difficult to discuss an editor who writes 2+ autobiographies without getting close to outing. Benjiboi says that he was outed by Wikireview on Sept. 5. It looks to me that he was apparently outed by his supporters and fellow community members on Sept. 5. [35] (and following at the same AfD)
The same material also appeared much earlier at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Pusspuss
I don’t think that it’s necessary to discuss this as “outing” – it’s clear that the “3 people” involved are quite close, know each other very well, and work together. All we need to talk about is the obvious COI.
It‘s clear that Benjiboi has been engaging in COI edits right from the beginning, when he was essentially an SPA. [36]
Everything he has been doing recently has become controversial and disruptive. For example, see this discussion of his plagiarism [37]
Also see the edit war he was involved in today starting at [38] He spent considerable time above arguing about WP:PAID, where I have edited a bit, and I take his remarks as being aimed at me. Please notice that nobody else has mentioned this topic in this thread until he did. My complaint about Benjiboi has only been that he constantly reverted every edit I made at WP:PAID. It is summarized here Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Benjiboi#Sorry_if_this_wasn.27t_clear
When he put forth the bizarre position that Paid editors did not have a conflict of interest editing a proposed policy on paid editing. User:Will Beback and User:TeaDrinker asked point blank whether he had a COI by being a paid editor. Benjiboi refused to even accept the relevance of the question. Just today, he finally admitted that he is a paid editor. [39]
So what to do about an editor who blatantly disregards WP:COI and other Wikipedia rules like WP:POV and WP:RS and is disruptive with every edit? I think he has offered ANI a choice by returning to edit Wikipedia – either you accept his editing as OK, or you block or ban him.
I don’t think the larger community will accept his editing as being OK. This topic will come up again with every controversial edit that he makes.
Can he be blocked? Well, you folks know the rules better than I do, but certainly other editors must have been blocked for offenses less serious than writing 2+ apparent autobiographies and !voting at the AfDs of those apparent autobiographies. Smallbones (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Lar]

methinks thou doth protest too much. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

You're usually so proud of your socks and stunts and suchlike that you'll forgive me, I'm sure. I can't be arsed to actually keep a scorecard, mind you.

You misuse that phrase (Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222–230). It means that someone who is telling the truth will so rather plainly and shortly. Liars go on rather more. I simply said (following Lar's allegation) that these were not my socks.

The meaning has broadened over the years... but in any case you go on and on about your socks insufferably. Well, almost insufferably anyway. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) I was commenting on your overall body of work, not the specific statement. And, given the corpulent size of that corpus, what does that say, by your own interpretation of the quote, about the veracity of your statements?

As Thatcher has observed, my socks come with a label. They are also a matter of principle. I strongly disapprove of abusive socking, as Lar should know.

Pull the other one. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif) ... I think you forgot a "except when I'm doing it" in there, mate. Oh, darn, I forgot. Your socks are holier than most. Or holey-er, not sure which.

[One]

As Thatcher has observed, my socks come with a label. They are also a matter of principle. I strongly disapprove of abusive socking, as Lar should know.

Pull the other one. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif) ... I think you forgot a "except when I'm doing it" in there, mate. Oh, darn, I forgot. Your socks are holier than most. Or holey-er, not sure which.

Wait? Has he had clearly abusive socks? I tend to agree with Thatcher, but I might be wrong.

It seems that most of them are operated in an effort to show that he would be a valuable contributor. Even here, I don't doubt that he had a good-faith concern about COI editing and sock games. If he weren't doing this over the "principle of the matter," I'm almost sure that some of his accounts would still be unblocked. His disclosure principles remind me of how Everyking refused and refuses to edit under a new handle.

It may be that his socks cause more drama than they are worth (they certainly do), but I think he would argue that this is a failure of Wiki-culture rather than anything malicious he's doing.

This post has been edited by One:

[Lar]

As Thatcher has observed, my socks come with a label. They are also a matter of principle. I strongly disapprove of abusive socking, as Lar should know.

Pull the other one. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif) ... I think you forgot a "except when I'm doing it" in there, mate. Oh, darn, I forgot. Your socks are holier than most. Or holey-er, not sure which.

Wait? Has he had clearly abusive socks? I tend to agree with Thatcher, but I might be wrong.

It seems that most of them are operated in an effort to show that he would be a valuable contributor. Even here, I don't doubt that he had a good-faith concern about COI editing and sock games. If he weren't doing this over the "principle of the matter," I'm almost sure that some of his accounts would still be unblocked. His disclosure principles remind me of how Everyking refused and refuses to edit under a new handle.

It may be that his socks cause more drama than they are worth (they certainly do), but I think he would argue that this is a failure of Wiki-culture rather than anything malicious he's doing.

I guess it depends on your definitions. To me, socking to deliberately cause drama is abusive. It's not the same KIND of abuse as, say, socking to revert war, or vote stack, or out people, or any of a host of other prattish behaviors, but if [[WP:POINT]] is involved, it's abuse. To some extent anyway.

YMMV.

[A Horse With No Name]

You misuse that phrase (Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222–230). It means that someone who is telling the truth will so rather plainly and shortly. Liars go on rather more.

You are very smart, Petey. You should be giving lectures or writing books or hosting game shows. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[Appleby]

As Thatcher has observed, my socks come with a label. They are also a matter of principle. I strongly disapprove of abusive socking, as Lar should know.

Pull the other one. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif) ... I think you forgot a "except when I'm doing it" in there, mate. Oh, darn, I forgot. Your socks are holier than most. Or holey-er, not sure which.

Wait? Has he had clearly abusive socks? I tend to agree with Thatcher, but I might be wrong.

It seems that most of them are operated in an effort to show that he would be a valuable contributor. Even here, I don't doubt that he had a good-faith concern about COI editing and sock games. If he weren't doing this over the "principle of the matter," I'm almost sure that some of his accounts would still be unblocked. His disclosure principles remind me of how Everyking refused and refuses to edit under a new handle.

It may be that his socks cause more drama than they are worth (they certainly do), but I think he would argue that this is a failure of Wiki-culture rather than anything malicious he's doing.

Does it matter if a blocked person could be a valuable contributor? If someone is fairly and properly blocked its because the project is better off without them even allowing for their quality. Of course, if the block is wrong that's another matter and no doubt One and others would arrange an unblock in such a case.

[Peter Damian]

As Thatcher has observed, my socks come with a label. They are also a matter of principle. I strongly disapprove of abusive socking, as Lar should know.

Pull the other one. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif) ... I think you forgot a "except when I'm doing it" in there, mate. Oh, darn, I forgot. Your socks are holier than most. Or holey-er, not sure which.

Abusive socking in my book is when

1. You vote twice in an election, which is easily done, but which I have never done.

2. You appear twice in the same thread under a different guise, appearing to give stronger support for a view than actually exists. I have never done this either.

Do I cause drama? In this case, it was a single action, nominating a poorly sourced article for deletion. The rest is history.

Does it matter if a blocked person could be a valuable contributor? If someone is fairly and properly blocked its because the project is better off without them even allowing for their quality. Of course, if the block is wrong that's another matter and no doubt One and others would arrange an unblock in such a case.

I was blocked for complaining about FT2's socking, which was of the abusive kind (see above). I have already been offered an unblock by Thatcher, on condition I keep quiet about this matter. I declined the offer.

[No one of consequence]

Does it matter if a blocked person could be a valuable contributor? If someone is fairly and properly blocked its because the project is better off without them even allowing for their quality. Of course, if the block is wrong that's another matter and no doubt One and others would arrange an unblock in such a case.

I was blocked for complaining about FT2's socking, which was of the abusive kind (see above). I have already been offered an unblock by Thatcher, on condition I keep quiet about this matter. I declined the offer.

Not exactly. What you need to agree to do is to keep your actions within the normal bounds of the dispute resolution process. That means no edit warring to tag his old alleged account, and no using sockpuppets yourself to disruptively make a point. You could file a user conduct request for comment, and lay out your case using your best evidence and argument, and allow the community to comment. If the community thinks it is not a problem, you need to drop it. If the community thinks it is a problem, then either the community will pressure FT2 to take some kind of action, or you can use the community support from the RFC to leverage an arbitration case.

This post has been edited by No one of consequence:

[Lar]

Abusive socking in my book is when

1. You vote twice in an election, which is easily done, but which I have never done.

2. You appear twice in the same thread under a different guise, appearing to give stronger support for a view than actually exists. I have never done this either.

I guess it depends on your definitions. To me, socking to deliberately cause drama is abusive. It's not the same KIND of abuse as, say, socking to revert war, or vote stack, or out people, or any of a host of other prattish behaviors, but if [[WP:POINT]] is involved, it's abuse. To some extent anyway.

YMMV... I guess we have different books, and mine's bigger.

But I repeat myself

Do I cause drama? In this case, it was a single action, nominating a poorly sourced article for deletion. The rest is history.

The number of actions needed is a metric of your efficiency, and sparking off that much drama with a single action certainly is highly efficient, yes.

But that's not your most direct drama-induction ... THAT would be when you go "look look, I'm socking here when I add good content, I INSIST you block me now" ... have you sworn that off for good?

[Peter Damian]

But that's not your most direct drama-induction ... THAT would be when you go "look look, I'm socking here when I add good content, I INSIST you block me now" ... have you sworn that off for good?

I haven't done that for some time, if you notice. I did have some problem earlier on getting blocks, but now there are a good many newer ones who will just block because they have heard Damian is an evil enemy of the regimes, and will oblige. So no need for drama. All I need is record of good contributions that get blocked for no apparent reason.

Not exactly. What you need to agree to do is to keep your actions within the normal bounds of the dispute resolution process.

This is what I originally tried, a long time ago. I put up, successfully, some of FT2's crappy articles for deletion, and faced a storm of protest and block threats from Postlethwaite's gang.

Here is the block review

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...an_block_review

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[No one of consequence]

Not exactly. What you need to agree to do is to keep your actions within the normal bounds of the dispute resolution process.

This is what I originally tried, a long time ago. I put up, successfully, some of FT2's crappy articles for deletion, and faced a storm of protest and block threats from Postlethwaite's gang.

Here is the block review

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...an_block_review

Yes, and you were unblocked, and the original block was condemned.

[Peter Damian]

Yes, and you were unblocked, and the original block was condemned.

So if I commenced an RfC, I would be blocked, then unblocked and the block would be condemned? Can you guarantee that? Why would I believe you?

By the way, read the block review. It is a travesty. I had forgotten how bad it all was.E.g.

Additionally, he has edited and involved himself in pedophilia-related topics.

This makes it sound as though I was a pedophile, or at best that I shouldn't get involved in such topics. In fact I was protesting against the abuse of single-purpose accounts by pedophile activists.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[No one of consequence]

Yes, and you were unblocked, and the original block was condemned.

So if I commenced an RfC, I would be blocked, then unblocked and the block would be condemned? Can you guarantee that? Why would I believe you?

By the way, read the block review. It is a travesty. I had forgotten how bad it all was.

I don't know what would happen; 1500 admins are hard to control. Kelly Martin had a great analogy once, something about Wikipedia being a cart pulled by a thousand cats with no leader, all trying to pull in different directions.

I don't recall the exact wording I used when I unblocked you before; it is possible that I was insufficiently nuanced, or that I today recognize the need for nuance that I did not recognize before. The intent should have been to require you to behave civilly and not resort to uncivil, disruptive or harassing tactics; not to bar you from all things FT2 forever. Filing the Afd's and advocating for cleanup and merging of the NLP articles was reasonable and the block was a mistake.

What I would do now is unblock you with a note on your talk page stating that you are free to pursue the normal dispute resolution process for any dispute you happen to be involved in (RFC and mediation for article content, RFC/U for user conduct) as long as you did so within the normally understood boundaries of user conduct toward other users. I can't make any guarantees as to what other admins would do.

[Robert Roberts]

The simplest interpretation of these facts is that Benjiboi is writing gay porn advertisements on Wikipedia for pay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=313260282


It does seem fairly clear they are doing favours for friends or maybe a little paid work Not sure it's as systematic as suggested in this post.

This post has been edited by Robert Roberts:

[Peter Damian]

What I would do now is unblock you with a note on your talk page stating that you are free to pursue the normal dispute resolution process for any dispute you happen to be involved in (RFC and mediation for article content, RFC/U for user conduct) as long as you did so within the normally understood boundaries of user conduct toward other users. I can't make any guarantees as to what other admins would do.

How about this:

* some recognition that many or all of previous blocks were unfair (this is because many subsequent blocks cite the fact that I was blocked before as reasons for new blocks).
* a statement from Wales acknowledging that my campaign against corruption and conflict of interest on Wikipedia was in good faith
* no talk of 'a new chance' or any nonsense like that. I have no regrets, except about the comment that started this all nearly 2 years ago.
* In return, everything you ask above



This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Deodand]

What I would do now is unblock you with a note on your talk page stating that you are free to pursue the normal dispute resolution process for any dispute you happen to be involved in (RFC and mediation for article content, RFC/U for user conduct) as long as you did so within the normally understood boundaries of user conduct toward other users. I can't make any guarantees as to what other admins would do.

How about this:

* some recognition that many or all of previous blocks were unfair (this is because many subsequent blocks cite the fact that I was blocked before as reasons for new blocks).
* a statement from Wales acknowledging that my campaign against corruption and conflict of interest on Wikipedia was in good faith
* no talk of 'a new chance' or any nonsense like that. I have no regrets, except about the comment that started this all nearly 2 years ago.
* In return, everything you ask above

Four little words can answer that quite easily: have you considered stand-up?

[Peter Damian]

Here's another crap article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fudgie_Frottage Who actually is "Fudgie Frottage" aka Lu Read? Google isn't particularly helpful. Who put the promotional photograph there? Someone called Dr.Feel.Goo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ons/Dr.feel.goo whose contributions prove s/he wrote the article. Only two pages link there, and both links were provided by our old friend Benjiboi

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=172385664
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=175466214

See also the first attempt at deletion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...Fudgie_Frottage

which was opposed by the usual crowd. Benjiboi is now defending the article like mad on its talk page. Someone is claiming the citations are rubbish.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Grep]

Shouldn't we just view this as the transgender equivalent of the Letchworth corset riot? I have to say that Jspearmint (T-C-L-K-R-D) has a sense of humour more to my taste than Benji, but YMMV.

This post has been edited by Grep:

[Peter Damian]

Just spotted this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Soc..._Damian/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
24.22.141.252 (talk • contribs • abuse log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)

Evidence submitted by Fences and windows
This IP user has lately been focussing on deleting and criticising articles edited by User:Benjiboi, e.g. they nominated by proxy Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tactical frivolity. A sockpuppet of Peter Damian, User:The Land Surveyor, had already been blocked after opening Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Pusspuss (2nd nomination), an article which Benjiboi started.

The IP first crossed paths with Benjiboi on 16 August, before the DJ Pusspuss AfD:[1].

From his posts on Wikipedia Review Peter Damian seems obsessed with Benjiboi's editing, and Peter Damian was previously in disagreement with Benjiboi on-wiki too.[2] On that thread he makes plain the reason for the choice of the username "Peter Damian" - St. Peter Damian was a notable opponent of homosexuality; the articles the IP user is objecting to mostly concern the SF gay scene.

Peter Damian has shown an interest off-wiki in the editing of this IP user, to the extent of quoting this in his signature on Wikipedia Review: "I have this horrible psychological tic which leaves me unable to productively collaborate with compulsive plagiarists and liars. Obviously, Wikipedia is full of these, and an ability to interact positively with them is important. We should strive to make everyone, especially game-players and liars, feel at home. If regular people try to stop this, they should be banned.24.22.141.252 (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)."[3]

What gives me pause is that the topics the IP started editing on, linguistics, are not those same as the interests of Peter Damian, which were philosophy. But the editor is clearly not a newbie - they are well versed in the ways of Wikipedia and dropped a note to User:Thekohser, another WR regular - and the quacking is loud enough for me to file this. If this isn't a sockpuppet of Peter Damian, it'll be the sock of another editor.

Wrong on all counts - even the 'what gives me pause' bit. I have edited on linguistics before (remember 'AmericanLinguist').

And I am of course a notable opponent of pederasty, or least, when pederasts start promoting their disturbing views on Wikipedia.

The IP is on a different continent.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[tarantino]

Just spotted this:
Evidence submitted by Fences and windows

Dollars to dumplings, Fences and windows is an undisclosed alternate account of a rather infamous Wikipedian.

[don fugazi]

Dollars to dumplings, Fences and windows is an undisclosed alternate account of a rather infamous Wikipedian.

Which one?

[Alison]

Looks like [Slut Night] has been nuked now, too (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

[Moulton]

You are free to pursue the normal dispute resolution process for any dispute you happen to be involved in.

WP doesn't have a functional dispute resolution process.

[Lar]

You are free to pursue the normal dispute resolution process for any dispute you happen to be involved in.

WP doesn't have a functional dispute resolution process.

That doesn't mean you're not free to pursue it.

[Moulton]

That doesn't mean you're not free to pursue it.

The Snark was a Boojum, you see.

[No one of consequence]

What I would do now is unblock you with a note on your talk page stating that you are free to pursue the normal dispute resolution process for any dispute you happen to be involved in (RFC and mediation for article content, RFC/U for user conduct) as long as you did so within the normally understood boundaries of user conduct toward other users. I can't make any guarantees as to what other admins would do.

How about this:

* some recognition that many or all of previous blocks were unfair (this is because many subsequent blocks cite the fact that I was blocked before as reasons for new blocks).
* a statement from Wales acknowledging that my campaign against corruption and conflict of interest on Wikipedia was in good faith
* no talk of 'a new chance' or any nonsense like that. I have no regrets, except about the comment that started this all nearly 2 years ago.
* In return, everything you ask above

I'm sorry, Peter, but after much reflection I've decided I'm not going to crawl out on this limb alone this time. Among other reasons, it's just not a good time in my real life to get involved in a big drama in my fake life. If you want to follow procedure and email the ban appeal subcommittee (currently Cas, John V and CHL) I'm willing to send them my thoughts on your situation as discussed here.

[Peter Damian]

I'm sorry, Peter, but after much reflection I've decided I'm not going to crawl out on this limb alone this time. Among other reasons, it's just not a good time in my real life to get involved in a big drama in my fake life. If you want to follow procedure and email the ban appeal subcommittee (currently Cas, John V and CHL) I'm willing to send them my thoughts on your situation as discussed here.

Oh well thanks for thinking about me. I did email the committee quite a lot in 2008, for quite a few months. Never had a reply. It was actually JV who promised to look into the FT sockpuppet affair two months ago but must have slipped his mind.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[jayvdb]

I'm sorry, Peter, but after much reflection I've decided I'm not going to crawl out on this limb alone this time. Among other reasons, it's just not a good time in my real life to get involved in a big drama in my fake life. If you want to follow procedure and email the ban appeal subcommittee (currently Cas, John V and CHL) I'm willing to send them my thoughts on your situation as discussed here.

Oh well thanks for thinking about me. I did email the committee quite a lot in 2008, for quite a few months. Never had a reply. It was actually JV who promised to look into the FT sockpuppet affair two months ago but must have slipped his mind.

Nope. It is merely buried under more important and time-critical matters that I have been catching up with since taking a break from Arbcom cases.

[wjhonson]

I wonder if this AFD will bring the esteemed LGBT editor and fellow self-promoter Allstarecho out of his retirement (and by retirement I mean leaving in a huff as the ban hammer starts getting warmed up)?

Only if Matt Sanchez shows up. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

EVIL !

[carbuncle]

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:

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?

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!

[Apathetic]

I don't even think this needs a post, let alone a thread.

Suggest merge with existing thread and let the horse rest in peace.

[carbuncle]

I don't even think this needs a post, let alone a thread.

Suggest merge with existing thread and let the horse rest in peace.

Really? I think it's a great lesson in how WP culture functions. Some things are not allowed to be spoken of, and will result in shunning, temporary exile, or expulsion. Other the other hand, anyone with enough Wikipower (or lack of concern about the consequences) can say anything they want. Usually people go away quietly when they are exposed as thoroughly as this - Benjiboi has chosen to use WP culture to screen his real-life identity and conflict of interest. It should be interesting to see where this ends up.

[Peter Damian]

I don't even think this needs a post, let alone a thread.

Suggest merge with existing thread and let the horse rest in peace.

Really? I think it's a great lesson in how WP culture functions. Some things are not allowed to be spoken of, and will result in shunning, temporary exile, or expulsion. Other the other hand, anyone with enough Wikipower (or lack of concern about the consequences) can say anything they want. Usually people go away quietly when they are exposed as thoroughly as this - Benjiboi has chosen to use WP culture to screen his real-life identity and conflict of interest. It should be interesting to see where this ends up.

I agree.

[Robert Roberts]

I don't even think this needs a post, let alone a thread.

Suggest merge with existing thread and let the horse rest in peace.

Really? I think it's a great lesson in how WP culture functions. Some things are not allowed to be spoken of, and will result in shunning, temporary exile, or expulsion. Other the other hand, anyone with enough Wikipower (or lack of concern about the consequences) can say anything they want. Usually people go away quietly when they are exposed as thoroughly as this - Benjiboi has chosen to use WP culture to screen his real-life identity and conflict of interest. It should be interesting to see where this ends up.

I agree.

You get a mention on his talkpage (cameron Scott again) but they did get your name wrong:

* I don't know anyone called Peter Damin

* If there is an organised effort to "get you" I have never been contacted by it.

* Nobody at wikipedian review has their hand up my ass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=315640284

[Peter Damian]

I should hope not. For the record, I have nothing to do with Scott or the IP. I was interested in the earlier thread because it highlighted a few of the things I am concerned about. E.g. conflict of interest, pathological lying, and the tendency to scream personal attack to any kind of reasonable argument.

[FreiheitBaguette]

I'm new at this Board.

If this were just a generic Wikipedia user, instead of a person who, like Benjiboi has gained favor amongst the powerful people at Wikipedia, then this would be a pretext for an instant CoI block. While he is not an administrator, he obviously is being protected by someone. If you look at his userpage, you will see multiple barnstars, in addition to this image of a naked man looking for sex being "dedicated" to him by David Shankbone (note:NSFW):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A_man_ra...Fire_Island.jpg

Anyone who receives such a voluminous amount of barnstars on their userpage, and then doesn't get a block when it is discovered that he wrote two autobiographies is protected by somebody high up in the ranks of Wikipedia. However, now that the proverbial cat is already out of the bag, I don't think he has any excuse for what he did.

I commend tarantino and Peter Damian for exposing this.

--FB

P.S. I'm not Cameron Scott, nor am I the IP.

This post has been edited by FreiheitBaguette:

[Cedric]

I don't even think this needs a post, let alone a thread.

Suggest merge with existing thread and let the horse rest in peace.

Mod note: Merged with existing thread.

[Robert Roberts]

Benjiboi has chosen to use WP culture to screen his real-life identity and conflict of interest. It should be interesting to see where this ends up.

You have to wonder who's protecting him - everyone accepts that he has a COI with the organisation he works with yet he's still busy promoting them over on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=316448566


Other COI editors have been banned for far less, I guess they don't have decent contacts.

[Robert Roberts]

Nice bit of business here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=319432197

How we missed the linked post before is beyond me. It looks like Benjiboi has forgotten that they made that statement and Scott is playing on that with his questioning.

Notice what Scott edits immediately after that conversation, that can't be by chance surely?

[thekohser]

You mean, I could have denied my connections with Wikipedia Review, had I only claimed that my edits in 2006 were the work of "someone else" I allowed to "use my account"?

Damn, I didn't know it was that simple.

[A Horse With No Name]

Nice bit of business here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=319432197

How we missed the linked post before is beyond me. It looks like Benjiboi has forgotten that they made that statement and Scott is playing on that with his questioning.

Notice what Scott edits immediately after that conversation, that can't be by chance surely?

Eh, Scott loves to be the avenging angel -- makes him feel important. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[carbuncle]

In this chapter of the seemingly never-ending story of the boy who wouldn't admit what everyone already knew, a new character named HenjiBolmann show comes to visit. Both Benjamin Holmann Benjiboi and Cameron Scott quickly show up to welcome them.

"Hi," said the stranger as Benjiboi and Cameron burst through the door.
"Cameron, stop pretending to be me," Benjiboi said to the stranger.
"No, you stop pretending that you're me pretending to be you," said Cameron to the stranger and Benjiboi.

This sounds like another job for the possibly homoerotic Hardy Boys.

[A Horse With No Name]

This sounds like another job for the possibly homoerotic Hardy Boys.

Now cut it out -- the Hardy Boys are not homosexuals. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Nancy Drew, on the other hand, hasn't shown any interest in boys. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[carbuncle]

Benjiboi seems to have decided that WR is the source of anything that he doesn't like.

67.160.100.233 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) - sneaky SPA who is quite obviously an experienced editor disrupting with personal attacks, bad faith accusations, etc to make a WP:Point. Hard to believe they aren't also affiliated with Wikipedia Review. -- Banjeboi 12:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Benjiboi seems to have decided that WR is the source of anything that he doesn't like.

Oops. Big mistake. Up periscopes ... and merge with latest Shankbone topic.

[tarantino]

Benjiboi seems to have decided that WR is the source of anything that he doesn't like.

Oops. Big mistake. Up periscopes ... and merge with latest Shankbone topic.

In addition to editing Michael Lucas articles, Benji does know him. Lucas has performed at a couple of SPI fundraisers, at least one of which Benji DJed and Sister Roma MCed. Lucas also co-hosted the GAYVN Porn Awards with Sister Roma.

BTW, Benji has been known to use the alias [Sister] Ann R. Key, as his Amazon profile shows.

[RMHED]

Benjiboi seems to have decided that WR is the source of anything that he doesn't like.

Oops. Big mistake. Up periscopes ... and merge with latest Shankbone topic.

In addition to editing Michael Lucas articles, Benji does know him. Lucas has performed at a couple of SPI fundraisers, at least one of which Benji DJed and Sister Roma MCed. Lucas also co-hosted the GAYVN Porn Awards with Sister Roma.

BTW, Benji has been known to use the alias [Sister] Ann R. Key, as his Amazon profile shows.

Benji is a duplicitous fuckwit who wants things all his own way, well tough fucking shit Benji life don't work that way.

[Milton Roe]

Benjiboi seems to have decided that WR is the source of anything that he doesn't like.

Oops. Big mistake. Up periscopes ... and merge with latest Shankbone topic.

In addition to editing Michael Lucas articles, Benji does know him. Lucas has performed at a couple of SPI fundraisers, at least one of which Benji DJed and Sister Roma MCed. Lucas also co-hosted the GAYVN Porn Awards with Sister Roma.

BTW, Benji has been known to use the alias [Sister] Ann R. Key, as his Amazon profile shows.

The BLP on "DJ Pusspuss" has been deleted, but his photo lives on, on Commons.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DJ_...Tommy_Kohl_.jpg

Uploaded, of course, by Benjiboi. Before it disappears, here you go:

(IMG:http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/DJ_Pusspuss.jpg)

Benjiboi voted KEEP in the RfD for DJ Pusspuss, see below, for droll reasons. This causes Legionarious (T-C-L-K-R-D) to nail the connections and shared identity (including the RL name):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...ion/DJ_Pusspuss

Most of the links in the above no longer work (surprise). A few do. http://web.archive.org/web/20040422020625/...m/Siskitty.html

If you goggle all these different ID names, you get all kinds of hits.

[A Horse With No Name]

In addition to editing Michael Lucas articles, Benji does know him. Lucas has performed at a couple of SPI fundraisers, at least one of which Benji DJed and Sister Roma MCed. Lucas also co-hosted the GAYVN Porn Awards with Sister Roma.

BTW, Benji has been known to use the alias [Sister] Ann R. Key, as his Amazon profile shows.

Mr. T, come on over to the Book Forum that was set up today -- we need your research skills on the Wikipedia book that is being planned! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

BTW, Benji has been known to use the alias [Sister] Ann R. Key, as his Amazon profile shows.

Is that the same Sister Ann R. Key (link) of The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence who joined the order in 1994?

Perhaps we should rename the Pee-dia project ...

The Encyclopedia of Perpetual Indulgence

[Somey]

Benjiboi seems to have decided that WR is the source of anything that he doesn't like.

67.160.100.233 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) - sneaky SPA who is quite obviously an experienced editor disrupting with personal attacks, bad faith accusations, etc to make a WP:Point. Hard to believe they aren't also affiliated with Wikipedia Review. -- Banjeboi 12:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

In case anyone still cares about such things, we have no posters or registrants (going back to Day One) who have used the 67.160.100.* address range...

If volunteers are abused they'll take their talents elsewhere.

Ahh, if only that were true! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

I have no problems with paid editing *but* Benji has made a classic mistake, if you don't want to answer a question then don't answer it - the weasel way he phrases his answer screams "I am a paid editor!" regardless of what the truth actually is.

The simplest interpretation of these facts is that Benjiboi is writing gay porn advertisements on Wikipedia for pay.

Benjiboi, do you deny this? Do you have another interpretation of these facts? --- User:Smallbones 21:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

His Sisters page lists: "What is your occupation? Writer" ... what business are HM Ltd. and RFPP in?

67.160.100.233 is, what, Seattle?

If you were invited by another country to be a citizen journalist it sure would seem exceptional, and then add interviewing (not seeing) the president by granted interview which itself was reported on by independent media. Yea, it might, or at least suggest this is an exceptional situation. -- Banjeboi 00:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hold on ... was he "invited by another country to be a citizen journalist" or financed and introduced because he was part of a Fire Island daisy chain with the Israel Consulate's David Saranga?

I mean, which came first?

Did David Shankbone get funded and the intro to Perez because he got David Saranga in on the Israeli hardcore gay porn king Michael Lucas's entertainment? Or did David Saranga get David Shankbones in on the Lucas Entertainment, inc after he financed his trip to Israeli? Who scratched whose back first?

Is hard core gay porn Michael Lucas's primary connection with the Israeli government's David Saranga or with the "leading Wikipedian" David Shankbone?

I want a detailed "blow" by "blow" account. This would seem to be the ground the whole "notability" stands on. All very encyclopaediac indeed ... is Benjiboi just on a 'High Doe' about defending the Shankbone topic because he is part of the same gay porn scene turn tricks on the Pee-dia ... and by sucking up to Shankbone strengthen their collective position within the Pee-dian "community"?

I suspect we might read about all this in the San Francisco Spectrum Magazine.

Re: Benjiboi

It is one thing to argue with a stubborn editor, it is another to argue with an editor paid to be stubborn.

--TeaDrinker (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[Robert Roberts]

Sometimes we can see connections where none exist and a cabal where none exist and other times... I'm not sure about all this...

Those are other fire island photos of shankbone's but he doesn't seem to have uploaded them to commons:

site is not work safe

http://www.nakedfuel.com/nakedblog/?p=1294


As far as I can see, Shankbone went to Israeli in 2007 and fire Island in 2008.

This post has been edited by Robert Roberts:

[Robert Roberts]

Who is Andy Towle? I notice that both Cameron Scott and BenjiBoi are editing the article and that it has a picture of him... on fire island and has been edited by David Shankbone?

How is Shankbone generating an income? The majority of his work seems to be for free - so where's the cash coming from?

[carbuncle]

Who is Andy Towle? I notice that both Cameron Scott and BenjiBoi are editing the article and that it has a picture of him... on fire island and has been edited by David Shankbone?

How is Shankbone generating an income? The majority of his work seems to be for free - so where's the cash coming from?

Andy Towle has a blog: TowleRoad. Bradford Shellhammer started Queerty. Both are fairly well-known blogs dealing with subjects of gay and LGBT interest.

[carbuncle]

Is hard core gay porn Michael Lucas's primary connection with the Israeli government's David Saranga or with the "leading Wikipedian" David Shankbone?

I want a detailed "blow" by "blow" account. This would seem to be the ground the whole "notability" stands on. All very encyclopaediac indeed ... is Benjiboi just on a 'High Doe' about defending the Shankbone topic because he is part of the same gay porn scene turn tricks on the Pee-dia ... and by sucking up to Shankbone strengthen their collective position within the Pee-dian "community"?

I suspect we might read about all this in the San Francisco Spectrum Magazine.

Re: Benjiboi

It is one thing to argue with a stubborn editor, it is another to argue with an editor paid to be stubborn.

--TeaDrinker (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I tend to think that Benjiboi's main reason for his self-promotion on WP is ego, although given his antics at the paid editing guidlines, there could be more to it. I think Shankbone is similar, but also has a much better understanding of how to exploit WP for his own interests. I'm certainly not ruling out exchanges of money, favours for friends, or other quid pro quo arrangements.

You seem to be suggesting that this is some big man-on-man sex for edits ring, which is just a little offensive. After all, isn't the American Dream to have sex with porn stars watch yourself have sex with porn stars on your giant flatscreen TV? I'm getting tired of the homophobia here.

[A Horse With No Name]

I'm getting tired of the homophobia here.

When someone asks Shankbone "Are you free, Mr. Humphreys?", then you'll know things have gotten out of hand. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

You seem to be suggesting that this is some big man-on-man sex for edits ring, which is just a little offensive.

Isn't it more just about life in microcosm and how different group work within society? Queer just has always had a lot more entertainment value to it. Just because you are gay does not mean that you have to have, or even could, sleep with every man you know.

For me, what makes all stuff interesting - when it is really all very small and tawdry - is the involvement of national government in gaming the Wiki and I am amazed that issue never got brought up to be address ... and here they are lauding the player. I guess I am naive.

At the start of this, I wrote to the effect that I thought Shankbone had the right idea and had done very well to get something directly back out of his Pee-dian investment. It could have been done with a little bit more class but I stand by that even if I criticize the daftness of the 'Palestinian kid toy gun' affair.

I am no longer that naive to buy into the value of the Pee-dia as a place for altruism.

[Obesity]

Just because you are gay does not mean that you have to have, or even could, sleep with every man you know.

That's not what I heard.

[Somey]

Did David Shankbone get funded and the intro to Perez because he got David Saranga in on the Israeli hardcore gay porn king Michael Lucas's entertainment? Or did David Saranga get David Shankbones in on the Lucas Entertainment, inc after he financed his trip to Israeli? Who scratched whose back first?

Personally, I doubt the order of events and personal introductions really matters. For all we know, the three of them could have all met at the same time, at a party or a nightclub... It makes more sense to assume that he met/befriended Lucas first, and then Lucas introduced him to Saranga, but that's only because it would have been highly inappropriate for someone in Saranga's position to be introducing US citizens to gay porn actors, as opposed to a gay porn actor introducing people to an Israeli consulate official (which is still inappropriate, just not as much).

The real issue, to me, is the alleged "stalker." There was some speculation that the AnonIP user who used Wikipedia to accuse Shankers of co-habitating with Lucas was one of Lucas's jilted ex-boyfriends, or perhaps a porn actor who had a falling-out with Lucas and wanted revenge. There was further speculation that the AnonIP was Shankers himself, and I even believed that for a time, but that was mostly because I was blinded by the fact that Shankers is a genuinely appalling and horrible person. Also, he didn't really lose his shit here on WR until that issue was raised, at which point he became incredibly abusive, almost frighteningly so.

By now, though, I don't really think it makes sense that Shankers would have been the AnonIP, but it makes a fair amount of sense (given his personality and temperament) that he would have made up the "stalking" story, with the AnonIP as the "stalker," as a means of gaining sympathy and discrediting the allegations. We'll probably never know for certain, but of course that won't stop them from mentioning it in the article about him as if it were a definitive fact.

At the start of this, I wrote to the effect that I thought Shankbone had the right idea and had done very well to get something directly back out of his Pee-dian investment. It could have been done with a little bit more class but I stand by that even if I criticize the daftness of the 'Palestinian kid toy gun' affair.

As I recall, I had the same general opinion, as far as the first part of that is concerned. If you can get away with it and not hurt anybody, then why not try?

As for the second part, though, let's face it: If he had done all that stuff with even a tiny microscopic iota of class, that would have been more class than he actually did it with.

[A Horse With No Name]

For me, what makes all stuff interesting - when it is really all very small and tawdry - is the involvement of national government in gaming the Wiki and I am amazed that issue never got brought up to be address ... and here they are lauding the player. I guess I am naive.

I am surprised that other governments aren't following the Israeli lead in using WP for propaganda efforts. Or maybe they are, but they are being subtle about it. Obviously, the Israeli propaganda isn't well served by having the Tel Aviv touring company of "Boys in the Band" handling their PR.

[Milton Roe]

Just because you are gay does not mean that you have to have, or even could, sleep with every man you know.

That's not what I heard.

Me, either. It's just every GAY man you know. And some you don't know. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Well, it was like that up to about 1985. Read Shilts or talk to any gay man who is older than about 50, about what the 1970's and early 80's were like. I've heard enough stories to last me a lifetime.

I remain convinced that the behavioral issue here is not gayness per se, but rather the lack of women in the equation. Who do NOT (on average) view sex in the same terms as men do. With gay men, you're simply seening normal male sexual behavior (gay or straight) in the absense of the constraining effects that women and children put on it. Do I really have to enumerate these? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

If you find this politically incorrect, well, too bad. It's still, I think, more or less true.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Personally, I doubt the order of events and personal introductions really matters. For all we know, the three of them could have all met at the same time, at a party or a nightclub... It makes more sense to assume that he met/befriended Lucas first, and then Lucas introduced him to Saranga, but that's only because it would have been highly inappropriate for someone in Saranga's position to be introducing US citizens to gay porn actors, as opposed to a gay porn actor introducing people to an Israeli consulate official (which is still inappropriate, just not as much).

What I am waiting for is clear, uncontrovertible evidence of a connection between the Israeli Government and hard core gay porn (the former pushing the latter), that any government would have and that the "Wikipedia Community" provides a forum and outlet for it... It is not beyond imagination.

Being mindful of the pitfalls of all the dangers of double entendres now, when that comes, surely it will start to be seriously newsworthy and a real journalist come in to finish the story off? It is not often that you get to see such revelations happen in real time.

I am finding the reverse discrimination a little suspect ... imagine for one moment if a "sexy" British 'Consul for Media and Public Affairs' was discovered to have hung around with hard core pornographic "actresses" at the "Porn Queen of New York's" beach parties, then went on to arrange the government financing of an amateur pornography photographer in order to advance their career? We are talking ex-spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs here.

I am suspecting there is a connection because of Lucas's comments on touring to Israel to do special live sex shows for soldiers ... Saranga is a former IDF officer turn propagandist. Lucas has been fervently anti-pathic towards Islam ('ugly'), right-wing Orthodox Jews ('parasites') and promotes porn as free PR for Israel. Both, and the MFA, have been making the same noises ... and I don't mean moaning.

Michael Lucas: "I will expose the reality that the people of Israel face right now, especially that of gay Israelis who are targeted by the hate of Hezbollah."

Thankfully, I am new on the bus and really have no idea how awful a person Shankbone, and the rest of them, are or were. But I am starting to learn.

Hezbollah ... I am not sure if you need to be afraid or not. What what?



This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[Theanima]

Since his quiet "departure" in March, it seems Benjiboi has been building up an army of sockpuppets.

[melloden]

Since his quiet "departure" in March, it seems Benjiboi has been building up an army of sockpuppets.

Unsurprising. Gay people are so determined, and I'm not intending to be anti-gay.

[Cla68]

Since his quiet "departure" in March, it seems Benjiboi has been building up an army of sockpuppets.

So it doesn't always work to simply wait 90 days and start building new accounts. Good to see that serial BLP violator get banned.

[Alison]

Since his quiet "departure" in March, it seems Benjiboi has been building up an army of sockpuppets.

So it doesn't always work to simply wait 90 days and start building new accounts. Good to see that serial BLP violator get banned.

I just re-ran the case and found a few others, including one that made these interesting edits .... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) And yes, all those stated accounts are Benjiboi, breaking the rules as it suits him. Oh, and he likes removing unreferenced/notability templates as an anon when it suits him.

EDIT: Oh and if he's never been community-banned, now would be an appropriate time to bring it up, given the level of abuse here and his mocking indifference

[Milton Roe]

Since his quiet "departure" in March, it seems Benjiboi has been building up an army of sockpuppets.

So it doesn't always work to simply wait 90 days and start building new accounts. Good to see that serial BLP violator get banned.

I just re-ran the case and found a few others, including one that made these interesting edits .... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) And yes, all those stated accounts are Benjiboi, breaking the rules as it suits him. Oh, and he likes removing unreferenced/notability templates as an anon when it suits him.

EDIT: Oh and if he's never been community-banned, now would be an appropriate time to bring it up, given the level of abuse here and his mocking indifference

Goodbye, Puspuss.

[Cla68]

Since his quiet "departure" in March, it seems Benjiboi has been building up an army of sockpuppets.

So it doesn't always work to simply wait 90 days and start building new accounts. Good to see that serial BLP violator get banned.

I just re-ran the case and found a few others, including one that made these interesting edits .... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) And yes, all those stated accounts are Benjiboi, breaking the rules as it suits him. Oh, and he likes removing unreferenced/notability templates as an anon when it suits him.

EDIT: Oh and if he's never been community-banned, now would be an appropriate time to bring it up, given the level of abuse here and his mocking indifference

Done.

[Alison]

I just re-ran the case and found a few others, including one that made these interesting edits .... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) And yes, all those stated accounts are Benjiboi, breaking the rules as it suits him. Oh, and he likes removing unreferenced/notability templates as an anon when it suits him.

EDIT: Oh and if he's never been community-banned, now would be an appropriate time to bring it up, given the level of abuse here and his mocking indifference

Done.

Good (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

Then there's this and this and this. May as well get all of this out in the open (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

[Cla68]

I just re-ran the case and found a few others, including one that made these interesting edits .... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) And yes, all those stated accounts are Benjiboi, breaking the rules as it suits him. Oh, and he likes removing unreferenced/notability templates as an anon when it suits him.

EDIT: Oh and if he's never been community-banned, now would be an appropriate time to bring it up, given the level of abuse here and his mocking indifference

Done.

Good (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

Then there's this and this and this. May as well get all of this out in the open (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

You should message those diffs to Herschel, Greg, Awbrey, or someone like that so they can post them in this thread. Then, I'll acknowledge it and go post the diffs in the AN thread on WP so that someone can accuse me of meatpuppeting on behalf of banned editors.

[carbuncle]

I am shocked by these revelations! What terrible thing could have happened to Benjiboi to turn him from the valuable contributor that he was, into this trolling, sockpuppeting monster that is revealed before us in the harsh and unflattering light of Alison's mighty checkuser powers? Did our insensitive comments cause him to crack? Was the burden of almost, um, single-handedly creating gay porn articles too much for him? This truly is a terrible day.

[Lar]

I am shocked by these revelations! What terrible thing could have happened to Benjiboi to turn him from the valuable contributor that he was, into this trolling, sockpuppeting monster that is revealed before us in the harsh and unflattering light of Alison's mighty checkuser powers? Did our insensitive comments cause him to crack? Was the burden of almost, um, single-handedly creating gay porn articles too much for him? This truly is a terrible day.

"Single-handedly" ??? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

[Milton Roe]

I am shocked by these revelations! What terrible thing could have happened to Benjiboi to turn him from the valuable contributor that he was, into this trolling, sockpuppeting monster that is revealed before us in the harsh and unflattering light of Alison's mighty checkuser powers? Did our insensitive comments cause him to crack? Was the burden of almost, um, single-handedly creating gay porn articles too much for him? This truly is a terrible day.

"Single-handedly" ??? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) Nearly a Tom Swifty. I want to see an article about wanking done single-handedly.

[Text]

I am shocked by these revelations! What terrible thing could have happened to Benjiboi to turn him from the valuable contributor that he was, into this trolling, sockpuppeting monster that is revealed before us in the harsh and unflattering light of Alison's mighty checkuser powers? Did our insensitive comments cause him to crack? Was the burden of almost, um, single-handedly creating gay porn articles too much for him? This truly is a terrible day.

One of these possibilities:

1 - He's bored of the site and now having fun
2 - He's tired of being abused by someone on the site
3 - He has always been a troll

[carbuncle]

I am shocked by these revelations! What terrible thing could have happened to Benjiboi to turn him from the valuable contributor that he was, into this trolling, sockpuppeting monster that is revealed before us in the harsh and unflattering light of Alison's mighty checkuser powers? Did our insensitive comments cause him to crack? Was the burden of almost, um, single-handedly creating gay porn articles too much for him? This truly is a terrible day.

One of these possibilities:

1 - He's bored of the site and now having fun
2 - He's tired of being abused by someone on the site
3 - He has always been a troll

It was really a rhetorical question, but you forgot "4 - all of the above". I choose 4.

[Alison]

And banned unanimously (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[NuclearWarfare]

Since his quiet "departure" in March, it seems Benjiboi has been building up an army of sockpuppets.

Unsurprising. Gay people are so determined, and I'm not intending to be anti-gay.

Was there a purpose to the second sentence here?

[RMHED]

And banned unanimously (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Well he won't be editing da 'pedia again, cuz he's banned and that effectively stops him using a keyboard doesn't it?

[Ottava]

I wonder how many of Benjiboi's socks are trying to sink Common's sexual content policy, as he was always against the measures before. Would be interesting.

[Doc glasgow]

It is, of course, a vast puritan conspiracy, which led to this evil ban.

[Peter Damian]

It is, of course, a vast puritan conspiracy, which led to this evil ban.

Conspiracy: An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.

[melloden]

Since his quiet "departure" in March, it seems Benjiboi has been building up an army of sockpuppets.

Unsurprising. Gay people are so determined, and I'm not intending to be anti-gay.

Was there a purpose to the second sentence here?

Just making a remark. I think sexuality is a fascinating topic. People in groups often discriminated against (such as the LGBT community) are pretty determined, and that's what drives change in many cases. I think that Benjiboi's writing at least influenced many of Wikipedia's activist-type gay user but he had to go ahead and use a bunch of socks, too. Anyway, I'm just rambling at this point. He's banned, I love everyone, going to bed.