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)

[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.

[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.

[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:

[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.