It's hard for me to read the article you linked and draw any conclusions whatsoever about his motives. The whole article is just a series of vague insinuations hoping the reader is stupid enough and lacking in enough critical thinking skills to see two apparently contradictory facts like "he liked attention but played a lot of video games" and from there jump to the conclusion that he's a villain.

Is this supposed to be anything other than some sort of ad hominem? Why should his motives or character matter?

I see nothing in that article other than random tidbits about his life.

(That was an invitation for you to explain why you thought the article showed some sort of ulterior motive, if you didn't catch it.)