> Stephanie Adams - not as gay etc

carbuncle

Stephanie Adams was a 1992 Playboy Playmate. She later declared herself to be a lesbian and that caught people's attention, because that is exactly the kind of lesbian role model the world had been missing. Time passes and Adams marries a man and has a child. No longer gay, she says. (It's a trend.)

So, it seems that an editor named Fasttimes68, aside from editing Adams' BLP, has allegedly posted items on his blog calling Adams a "twat". Classy. Fasttimes68 counters that there has been obvious sockpuppetry and puffery from Adams' herself. Seems likely.

The article is now up for deletion where this charming exchange took place:

QUOTE

Delete if the article is currently kept in its currently promotional state. Keep if reliably-sourced negative criticism is restored (in an NPOV manner) to punish conflict of interest. elle vÃ©cut heureuse Ã jamais (be free) 05:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

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 vÃ©cut heureuse Ã 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 vÃ©cut heureuse Ã 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 vÃ©cut heureuse Ã jamais (be free) 13:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC

(the editor who posted the original comment and signs as "elle vÃ©cut heureuse Ã jamais" is User:La goutte de pluie)

Milton Roe

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 26th August 2011, 7:33pm)

Stephanie Adams was a 1992 Playboy Playmate. She later declared herself to be a lesbian and that caught people's attention, because that is exactly the kind of lesbian role model the world had been missing. Time passes and Adams marries a man and has a child. No longer gay, she says. (It's a trend.)

So, it seems that an editor named Fasttimes68, aside from editing Adams' BLP, has allegedly posted items on his blog calling Adams a "twat". Classy. Fasttimes68 counters that there has been obvious sockpuppetry and puffery from Adams' herself. Seems likely.

The article is now up for deletion where this charming exchange took place:

QUOTE

Delete if the article is currently kept in its currently promotional state. Keep if reliably-sourced negative criticism is restored (in an NPOV manner) to punish conflict of interest. elle vÃ©cut heureuse Ã jamais (be free) 05:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

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 vÃ©cut heureuse Ã 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 vÃ©cut heureuse Ã 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 vÃ©cut heureuse Ã jamais (be free) 13:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC

(the editor who posted the original comment and signs as "elle vÃ©cut heureuse Ã jamais" is User:La goutte de pluie)

What? Doesn't little Raindrop thinks that on-again then off-again lesbian playmates deserve to live "happly ever after" too? That's cold.

What about Anne Heche? Is she mentally ill forever? What about Arabic feminist activist Munchma Quchi? Suppose she marries and decides to change her silly name?

It's the blimp, Frank

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Sat 27th August 2011, 2:33am)

Stephanie Adams was a 1992 Playboy Playmate. She later declared herself to be a lesbian and that caught people's attention, because that is exactly the kind of lesbian role model the world had been missing. Time passes and Adams marries a man and has a child. No longer gay, she says. (It's a trend.)

So, it seems that an editor named Fasttimes68, aside from editing Adams' BLP, has allegedly posted items on his blog calling Adams a "twat". Classy. Fasttimes68 counters that there has been obvious sockpuppetry and puffery from Adams' herself. Seems likely.

The article is now up for deletion where this charming exchange took place:

QUOTE

Delete if the article is currently kept in its currently promotional state. Keep if reliably-sourced negative criticism is restored (in an NPOV manner) to punish conflict of interest. elle vÃ©cut heureuse Ã jamais (be free) 05:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

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 vÃ©cut heureuse Ã 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 vÃ©cut heureuse Ã 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 vÃ©cut heureuse Ã jamais (be free) 13:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC

(the editor who posted the original comment and signs as "elle vÃ©cut heureuse Ã jamais" is User:La goutte de pluie)

This is insightful and witty. I can see why they want to ban you.

Silver seren

This. This explains everything.

lilburne

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Sat 27th August 2011, 11:24am)

This. This explains everything.

All women are whores eh?

Silver seren

QUOTE(lilburne @ Sat 27th August 2011, 10:27am)

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Sat 27th August 2011, 11:24am)

This. This explains everything.

All women are whores eh?

Um...no. I was talking about Stephanie Adams. She taught a course at the Learning Annex (according to a news source I read) about "How to Marry a Rich Man". And the news source linked to that comic.

carbuncle

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Sat 27th August 2011, 1:26pm)

QUOTE(lilburne @ Sat 27th August 2011, 10:27am)

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Sat 27th August 2011, 11:24am)

This. This explains everything.

All women are whores eh?

Um...no. I was talking about Stephanie Adams. She taught a course at the Learning Annex (according to a news source I read) about "How to Marry a Rich Man". And the news source linked to that comic.

Maybe so, but you didn't link to whatever news source that was, you linked to the cartoon. You shouldn't be surprised if people interpret that as reflecting your opinions. Just out of curiosity, what reliable source that chose to link to that cartoon?

thekohser

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Sun 28th August 2011, 7:09pm)

Just out of curiosity, what reliable source that chose to link to that cartoon?

It was probably New York Press - Nov 30, 2004.

carbuncle

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 29th August 2011, 2:08am)

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Sun 28th August 2011, 7:09pm)

Just out of curiosity, what reliable source that chose to link to that cartoon?

It was probably New York Press - Nov 30, 2004.

Strange that I can't find such an article on their website.

This looks like a typical self-promotional BLP gone seriously off-course with the introduction of some kind of internet feud. Only one of the parties appears to be getting the boot. Also, someone has deleted the history of her BLP, which was only supposed to be redirected. The whole thing smells bad.

EricBarbour

QUOTE

(cur | prev) 23:06, 27 August 2011 HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs) (752 bytes) (Undid revision 447050918 by Dismas (talk) see WP:Courtesy blanking.)
(cur | prev) 23:05, 27 August 2011 Dismas (talk | contribs) (26,932 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by HJ Mitchell (talk): Revert page blanking. (TW))
(cur | prev) 21:48, 27 August 2011 HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs) (752 bytes) (blak)

Thanks a lot, you little chodes! Such great wiki-comedy!