Benjiboi, and his 2 autobiographies Options Rating

[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? 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: Mon 7th September 2009, 5:20pm

[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: Mon 7th September 2009, 5:38pm

[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: Mon 7th September 2009, 5:51pm

[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: Mon 7th September 2009, 7:40pm

[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: Mon 7th September 2009, 7:47pm

[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: Mon 7th September 2009, 7:55pm

[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: Mon 7th September 2009, 8:31pm

[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).

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.

And, Petey baby, why are you sooooooo interested in big ol' Benji, anyway?

[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).

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.

And, Petey baby, why are you sooooooo interested in big ol' Benji, anyway?

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