Uh, let me get this right. You're saying that in its current form, the article is promotional, but you're suggesting reliably sourced negative criticism should be restored (in an NPOV manner) in order to punish COI? If I've got that right, well ... I'm unaware of any policy or guideline recommending "WP:RETRIBUTION"; please rethink. -- Hoary (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a COI issue. People who write AUTOBIOGRAPHies cherry pick their sources, resulting in uncritical and biased edits; it is only fair to restore in compensation, reliably sourced negative content, to balance the article in accordance with NPOV policy. Furthermore, WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY is strongly discouraged. The ultimate discouragement is if the autobiography "becomes a source of dismay to their original authors" (as recommended in the guideline). elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 06:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The guideline of course recommends no such thing. -- Hoary (talk) 07:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It would only reward conflict of interest if Stephanie Adams' counsel won after massive pressure. This sort of thing must be the type of thing the project should actively discourage. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 13:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You are aware that causing harm or stress to Stephanie Adams (or any BLP subject) is exactly what we're trying to avoid, right? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Articles shouldn't exist to punish or otherwise harm anyone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

At the same time Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sitting duck for COI and legal coercion. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 13:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC