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)

[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.

[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?

[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)

[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?