(I might have some trouble being coherent, I'm writing this while somewhat tired and after a couple glasses of wine) While he certainly does aim to cite his own knowledge (by oddly wrapping his comments in ref tags), he also provides presumably decent supporting sources to back up his comments, the NY Times. From a wiki perspective it would seem that he's violated SELFCITE, a bit of SELFPROMO and certainly NPOV, however one could also consider his edits as a publication style. It's common for authors of reference books, particularly professors, to add footnotes after all and I find this to be a more plausible view. In my view, the way he is working over an entire article to achieve this is further evidence that, while it violates NPOV, he is not doing it maliciously as other self promoters do. His willingness to discuss puts him well above the bar of the usual self promoter. and he's not pushing his only publications as viable sources nor is he unwilling to seek consensus. From what I've seen of the usual self promoter there is usually a lot of histrionics, bluster, edit warring, ref spamming, talk page diatribes, etc I just don't see this here.