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.