There are no automatic rejections.
The "State of the ODP" report lists hundreds of new editors monthly. Many of them are not the sort of people who would have found much of interest in a forum for commercial/promotional webmsters. So you may never have met some of them. (But it's not the presence of commercial interests that is fatal, it's the absence of OTHER interests. And that condition that has occasionally been seen even outside commercial webmaster forums. So you may have talked to some of them, but they may talk only about commercial interests here, and only about benevolent interests elsewhere -- as is reasonable given the forum charter -- so you may not know how many editors you already know.
Some general comments on the application process: (I haven't seen your application to know it, so can't comment specifically. None of this may apply to you; each bit probably applies to someone who will read the thread.)
In this day when so many unethical webmasters want to be editors with malicious intent, it is essential to fully disclose the websites in which you have a personal interest. (Almost everyone has them -- whether the interest is personal or commercial or social! The point is, can you lay aside those personal interests while you're on ODP property? (Honest people can handle such conflicts of interest: it doesn't take an advanced degree in philosophical ethics to handle, say, Walmart money and property, and not confuse it with your own! Just be prepared to approach the ODP the same way.)
It's always been essential to show that you can find listable websites that really belong in that category, and in which you DON'T have a personal interest. (Because that's what you're offering to do, and that's the main thing that editors do.)
Articulation is taken for granted. But there's really nothing in the application that gives a way of gauging "intelligence", and it's almost certainly not a good thing to try to impress the reviewer with your intelligence. "I am" is just flat irrelevant. Even "I can do" is pure speculation. "I want to" or "I will" is promising--so long as it's from a demonstrably trustworthy source. "I have done" is definitive.
The "standard" rejection letter gives a list of problems that frequently occur. The SUCCESSFUL re-applicant will find something on that list that he could have done better, THEN try again. (This may seem obvious. But you'd be surprised how many people stop with perfect self-satisfaction as soon as they find something on that list that they DIDN'T do badly in their opinion.)
The "self-description" is perhaps the least important part of the application. Some people with over-exposure to marketroid practices tend to think everything else is irrelevant so long as they can hype themselves enough. It isn't so. Accuracy and relevance in self-appraisal is critical. An inflated resume is worse than worthless: it's always a very bad sign when someone thinks that how good he thinks he is, ought to matter to anyone else. (On the other hand, it's always a very good sign when someone can point to something like ODP editing that he's already doing, or something like the ODP goal that he's already helping accomplish. THAT'S what a REAL resume is about!)
I think there are people who can't break out of the marketroid mindset, and who shouldn't be editing the ODP. There are other people who CAN faithfully deal with accurate information, as well as communicate persuasively. They probably CAN edit--once they figure out which they should be trying to do! I have no way of knowing which category anyone is in, until I watch them try to accurately transmit information. You may have no way of knowing which category YOU'RE in, until you try for yourself.