Former Play Pet of the Month asks for her article to be removed as she wants to put that part od her life behind her:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=178674626

AFD begins:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...on/Ginger_Jolie

Looks likely article will be kept.

Not good, not good at all.#

You know, I think I'm fairly - for want of a better word - progressive on BLP issues. I don't buy that Wikipedia is just a reporter of what others have reported, and has no ethical obligations of its own. I believe all BLPs should be immediately semi-protected (as well of a number of other measures, but let's not rehash that here). But I'm not really convinced that the fact that Wikipedia carries what are, in effect, professional resumes of people in highish-profile professions makes it evil.

I'd have considerably more sympathy if her concern was the open-editing model; I can certainly understand why somebody would want an article bearing their name to be deleted on that basis. But I don't have a great deal of sympathy for people who think that once they leave part of their life - a part that involved them willingly becoming a public figure, under their real name - others have a duty to participate in burying that part of their life. [[RL:RTV]] is a redlink.

That said, a mod should move this into the BLP subforum (which I don't believe is Google indexed, right?).

On a related note, this is odd:



Edit: And sorry, this should be moved to the BLP section, I forgot the Google juice was currently turned on for this forum.

Seems insane to keep that when she's not really notable anyway.

Though I would love Guy to pop up with something like:

Keep - banging pair of norks, JzG (talk) 02:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

BLAAARGLE! That's the most.. wrong way to close an AFD ever "Sure it violates our core policy on living people, but hey, Wikipedia has no deadline, so Ignore All Rules!"

I'm seriously tempted to stub and protect under BLP.

I actually thought you meant he wrote that...



Or take it to DRV. It was closed very early.

Good idea.

Great comment from Jon Stewart's John Oliver last night, about Joe the Plumber, who is getting his 15 minutes of fame from being mentioned in the last presidential debate. Turns out the guy didn't file his income taxes for a few years. Oliver's comment: "Yes, everyone gets their 15 minutes. What they don't tell you, is that 12 of those minutes are rectal exam...."

Naaaa.... it's a cost benefit analysis. (you may not agree with the analysis but...) it goes like this. If this article were deleted now, it would be recreated multiple times over the next few weeks, at a fairly large cost in time and effort to keep it deleted, and the BLP harm would be almost the same (if it was around most of the time, not if you salted, of course) as keeping it. So let it slide a couple of weeks.. maybe this subject will end up being more than a BLP1E after all (what if Sarah is hit by a moose and John taps Joe as his new Veep candidate? Eh? Hey, it could happen).... if not, delete it in two weeks at far less cost.

I agreed yesterday. I still mostly agree today but maybe not as strongly. WP is a pragmatic place.

Sorry, Lar, I strongly disagree. Delete and salt until such time he's not WP:BLP1E bait. Especially considering all the negative facts people want to cram int here (the liens on his property, his lack of license, etcetera).. it's too open for abuse, and quite frankly, it'd be a tool for POV pushing either way with three weeks to a national election.

Delete, and salt any possible combination of titles. Then, after the election see if he still qualifies.

Especially with a close where even the AFD closer says "Yes, this violates BLP".. makes no sense to me.

Moderator's note: 10-4 on that, good buddy.

It was a terrible way to close, but only because the guy is massively notable and this ambivalent approach will fuel future attempts at removal--oh, it's been a month or two, not too many people are watching now, let's slap together a consensus of three deletionists on the talk page and then redirect it.

Sadly, she and her "SEO expert" will just want it back (minus the Playboy stuff) in a month. Sigh.

Well, she wants to put her "adult entertainment" career behind her, yet she is still calling herself "Ginger Jolie" and she's now appearing in Maxim. Well, there's no business like show business.

I was sure someone recently changed some policies so that the default AfD result for BLPs was delete. But I just looked at WP:BLP and couldn't find this. Anyone got any ideas on if I'm dreaming, or if not, where I can find this?

It was suggested by NYB in Palin wheel war workshop but not passed.

She's not calling herself that (at least not all the time), like she said at the help desk, she calls herself Jody Palmer, there are some pics of her on the "Maxim" website under that name.

It is a strange way to disassociate with your past, under a different name, by loudly insisting - in your current guise - that stuff relating to your past under the old name be removed. Since you can't uninvent the past, the only true option is to bury it by ignoring it. It is a peeve of mine that people can be quite happy to make a living in a certain manner, but then once their fame/celebrity is sufficient not to need that work to denigrate that choice.

My attitude to the article is that it is either notable or not, and should be kept or deleted on that basis. WP should not stand in moral judgement, and certainly not because the subject has now decided to portray themselves in a different manner. If it is salacious now, it was salacious then - so the only thing that has changed is the subjects opinion; no way to judge the basis notability.

Hmm, even the God King seems to favour deletion:

Regarding "Joe the Plumber", the meme is certainly notable... it's all over every TV show that discusses current American political issues these days. Whether that makes the person behind it notable is a different issue; he's undoubtedly better known under the "Joe the Plumber" name than his real name, and digging up details of his private life is a very tabloidish thing. What's probably needed is an article under the name of the meme rather than of the person, with content mostly being about the concept and how it was used and abused, with minimal detail about the person himself.

That doesn't mean it's not policy. Policy at WP is usually descriptive. If enough people close BLP AfDs as "default delete"... et voila, it's policy. I've encouraged admins to do just that in the past and I do so again, here and now, to any and all admins who happen to be reading this.

That's a pretty good idea actually, and one of the most radical suggestions you've posted. It's like civil disobedience in favor of the true, higher, ethical Wikipedia policy.

Not exactly a new idea... see this blog post of mine. where I credit whoever it (pretty sure it was Doc G) was that thought of it first. It's been mooted by many since then. It's a good idea as far as I am concerned. Pragmatic and imperfect, yes, but better than the status quo ante.

Edit: add that I think it was Doc G

Civil disobedience is better than upholding a bad law. But better to change the law.

Says the donkey in Animal Farm: "God gave me a tail to keep off the flies, but I'd rather have no tail and no flies."

The policy on WP is not changing, because Jimbo is not supporting a change, and the mostly anon admins (who don't have BLPs even if they aren't anon) don't either. Jimbo would, if his own BLP wasn't under such constant fluffing and buffing; but it is. And he doesn't basically give a shit about other people. There you are.

No, the policy on WP is not changing because there is no way to change policy on WP.

Hmm. She's pretty hot. Thank you, Google Image Search!

I believe the proper procedure in a case like this is to arrange to meet Jimbo in New York City.

No doubt you're being sarcastic there. But in case anybody thinks you're being serious, the entire BLP policy, as it now stands as something different, is "new." There was a time (perhaps before you can remember, but it did exist) when WP didn't treat BLP any differently from any bio, or indeed any other kind of Wiki. The seperate BLP policy page, which began to treat BLP differently, was started by WAS 4.250 on 17 December 2005 with the edit diff "I started this because of the Brandt situation" , and subsequently, most of the beginning of it was written by him and SlimVirgin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=31753956

All the difference, from then to now, is change in policy. It's just glacial change, and it doesn't go nearly far enough.

BTW, if you read the beginning versions of that page, they basically are Slimmy incessantly sucking up to Jimbo's policies, paying lipservice, and trying to figure out how to fix policy so as to keep Brandt in, but pretend nothing has changed with WP's core vision. In other words, the usual lying to herself and others that everybody making new policy on WP does. "I'm sure if Jesus were alive today, he'd want THIS. And THAT."

"Biographies of living persons deserve a special sensitivity," it said. LOL. Sensitivity? Where am I going to find "sensitivity" in basic and core RS, V, and NPOV policies of WP? Manufacturing a sense of sensitivity and ethics that is absent in the tabloid you're copying from, would in fact, be original research. You're looking into your own conscience-- something that isn't generally encouraged in WP editing (and I think was actually forbidden by NOR, prior to Dec, 2005 when it became a special guideline in BLP).

Anyway, in fact, the policy was mutated, at least on paper. I think the BLP policy was originally intended more of a defense against Brandt's accusations than an intention to really change anything. The Brandt bio was not deleted at that time. Yes, the Daniel Brandt bio was ultimately deleted, but only later, and only after he started outing Slim. These are facts. All while everybody furiously pretended nothing was changing, but was just being "clarified." Slim, in particular, had her fingers in her ears. Nobody actually showed any "special sensitivity" to Brandt, even after the BLP policy was started as a WP defense, until he started doing damage that nobody could stand. Then, they became sensitive enough to give Brandt what he wanted, while all the while pretending that he was no different from anybody else.

Looks like a circus so far. No consensus should be the result.

could someone fix the title of this thread?

Ms. Jolie was in Penthouse, not Playboy.

Penthouse is that (literally) bankrupt publication that did a lot of urine-fetish stuff in the 90s. They were kinda gross, but now they attempt to be more "classy."

Playboy is like the mainstream Mickey Ds/Walmart/Disney of erotica: very safe, just-south-of-softcore "tasteful", heavily airbrushed poses and lots of blonde midwestern/California girls. Penthouse girls are a little more skanky/wild, which is not a bad thing.

As far as their photography is concerned, they both suck. I prefer real art or hardcore porn, nothing in between.[/soapbox]

Oh, and could someone fix the title of this thread?

Oh, Baby. JzG/Guy, get out our BLP fixer-up tools. And buy some new batteries for Jimbo's various electronic devices. Gunna be a hot time in the old town tonight. Hopefully WR won't find out..

When a large number of people scream bloody murder, does it still count as the descriptive creation of policy? What you are describing is nothing more than might makes right, the most assertive and aggressive individuals making the rules and expecting the peons to play along.

Apologies, I've bought about four porn magazines in my life, and half of those while drunk in Victoria railway station, just to try and shock the girl on the till in WH Smith.

I also fail to see the point in soft-core pornography, though. If there's no penetration shown, what's the point?

Getting well offtopic, it's funny that you should say that you don't see the point in soft-core pornography... another forum that I'm on, a porn forum, a guy I talk to on there and trade filesharing links with says he explicitly prefers softcore porn, and doesn't like seeing guys in it. I can see where he's coming from to be honest, because a lot of the sexy big tit models don't do hardcore and they're very fappable. Having said that, it is a bit of a paradox, the idea of seeing a woman with cock inside her: I like the idea of women getting fucked, but I don't like the idea of seeing naked men or penises in general unless I'm imagining that it's my own penis.

As for this, it's just gonna be another Giovanni di Stefano case - the article will be kept, and the BLP concerns will be ignored. Most likely, anyway.

And it's now been closed as delete, as being a BLP of a marginally notable person who requests its deletion. Good call, IMO, though many will be unhappy, I'm sure

Wizardman, the deleting admin, says;

QUOTE

If a barely notable person requests deletion, and there is no consensus on what to do, what happens? Well, under the concept of basic human dignity, the article, sans proof of there being strong notability, should be deleted.

Aesthetic appreciation



Good one

Yep. Too bad it's not in the Five Pillars.

And now it's been taken to Arbitration - unbelievable!

(*sigh*)

See, that's due to it not being in the Five Pillars. As it involves simple human decency, WP isn't sure what to do with it. Politeness they're up on; humanity, not so much.

Of course, this assumes it would make some difference if you put it in The Rules. You can teach civility under duress (look at the bootcamp and OTS in the military!). But how do you mandate kindness?

Not that I would ever assume that anyone's motives are not what they appear to be, but taking it to arbitration does keep the flame under the simmering issue of BLPs. Perhaps it's an attempt to have arbcom set some kind of precedent about BLP-subject requested deletions?

I'm surprised NYB has dithered about his rejection. It really should have been immediately thrown out - unless ArbCom is now the only effective means to get policy changes in place (which I was under the impression was not ArbCom's raison d'etre). Seems a little inappropriate for NYB to extend their remit without any explicit request for ArbCom to do so in the request itself.

Just to point out, my close was in fact sent to DRV:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Del...ew/Ginger_Jolie

I waited until after it closed before posting though. Looks like this chapter's done, though we'll see if another comes out of it.

Can I just say that your closing statement was excellent Thanks for mentioning the concept of basic human dignity - sadly, some folks have forgotten about that. Good call, sir.

Yep. I want a sixth pillar: Don't be evil!. Oh, wait. That one's taken. As is First, do no harm. As is the golden rule.

Dang. Perhaps we could find something about niceness in the maxims of Ayn Rand? No?

Should people who want to get off of hivemind arrange to meet you in person? It appears that your arbitrariness in respect to hivemind and Jimbo's arbitrariness parallel each other.

It appears that the Ginger Jolie deletion, and subsequent DRV, have been interpreted as redefining [[WP:PORNBIO]]. Previously, it seemed to be enough to have been a Playboy Playmate or Penthouse Pet in order to be notable. There are a few adult model AFDs on now and I'm sure it will soon be open season on adult model bios.

Although I believe that people should be able to opt-out of WP bios, I've found myself in the awkward position of arguing against this deletion simply because I see how capricious admins can be in their AFD closes. As far as I can tell, no attempt was made to verify the identity of the person making the recent request for deletion. Surely if people can identify themselves through OTRS for the purposes of copyright validation, it can be done for opting out of BLPs?

That person identified themselves as "Ginger Jolie's SEO specialist", which leads me to suspect that this has very little to do with "basic human dignity" and more to do with a change of image for someone who continues to work in the adult industry under a different name.

There are a few issues which make this far less than the ideal case for BLP reform. It would be nice, however, if one of the many editors who participated in the DRV would now take this further and use the momentum to get something codified in [[WP:DEL]] (or move [[WP:BBLP]] forward).

Already time that this happened.

On April 2008 there was already a discussion on wether "Playmate of the Month" was enough to pass WP:PORNBIO. Srsly, guys, Playmate of the Year is an award and passes WP:PORNBIO, Playmate of the Month is a modelling job and not an award on it own.

Editors keep trying to add every single female under the sun that has ever as much as shown her nose somewhere famous, like making a template to link together all finalists for all awards on the porn industry. Not only the winners, but also every single finalist, saying that being a finalist alone is notability enough to make a whole article even if she made nothing notable apart from being a finalist once. See Adrienne Moreau for an egregious example of this. Madness! This is madness! THIS IS WIKIPEDIAAAAA!!

P.D.: List of people in Playboy 1960-1969 Madness, I say!

Why is Wikipedia mirroring content from Playboy.com without verification?

EDIT: Hey, here's a handy list of playmate articles that should not be deleted. "Notable Playmates."

WP:PORNBIO pretty much states, in so many words, that simply having been a Playboy Playmate or Penthouse Pet is sufficient for notability. In April it apparently was, but in October it sometimes wasn't. We'll see what happens in November.

I had no interest in articles on Penthouse Pets until recent events brought them to my attention. Honestly, I don't really care if there are articles on adult models, but if there are, they should be evaluated equally.