I have read much about people's take. A lot of it is reasonable and on point. I live in OKC and when I used to do a bit more running saw Camille quite often around Lake Hefner and occasionally Dolese park during evening runs. On some occasions she would stop and chat when I was running with a mutual acquaintance who she knew (as I didn't know Camille personally at all). My friend was a fixture in the OKC running scene and knew her reasonably well. Unfortunately he passed away prematurely roughly 4-5 yrs ago and I don't run a lot anymore, so I have not seen her in the last 4-5 yrs at all. However, I was able to interact with her enough with this friend to recognize that Camille is odd. All runners who run a lot are odd. I think we can admit this. Camille is very odd and as I understand it, is also on the spectrum. I am not saying this condescendingly as I have recently found through the AQ I am also most likely on the spectrum. I believe she has written about her condition and said as much. This doesn't excuse what is being done. I am simply letting people know a reason that she is odd as she is on the spectrum and probably has OCD, other mental issues, etc. So thinking her life and identity is wrapped up totally into running and being entirely fixated on something that captures her entire life is not out of the question and very much in line with what people with autism and mental issues do. The fact it came out like this is sad. I can't really say that I am entirely shocked.
Additionally, I will not go into anything deep about her husband as I am sure people on here and from OKC can comment more thoroughly. I have maybe met him 1 time in my life. I have simply heard he is not the easiest person to be around and may be a bit overzealous. All this I am sure probably contributed to what people are calling a scandal. Hopefully they learn from this and focus on more important things and being positive. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to do any of these things especially given there are enough accolades to go around and in time other runners will come along and re-write the fleeting history that are running records. The fact that they didn't know about IP addresses and tracking emails is ironic, but also maybe telling of how wrapped up in their own bubble they are. Strange times I guess.
Thanks for the great, insightful and fair post. You seem kind and balanced and have a nuanced take!
Put down the pitchforks for a minute. I've been digging into this article and the Wikipedia links it includes. While I've never been into editing Wikipedia myself, just looking at at this reminds me of posting on LetsRun. The rules and moderation of those rules are all subjective. Wikipedia has never been a completely reliable source of information for this exact reason. I thought that was common sense.
Unless someone can point out something I'm missing, from what I see is the reason the Temporun73 account was banned was because of "edit warring," which would involve more than one user's account. Basically, 2 or more editors adding/reverting back and forth without seeking a better resolution.
The other stuff like editing others' pages doesn't show anything that nefarious...again, unless I am missing something, she/they removed info that was "fluffery" (again a subjective rule) or clarified info, such as records that were pending.
And she or they added to her own profile things that were deemed promotional, which got deleted. Just like plenty of people here get their posts deleted all the time. There is a wide range of reasons posts get banned. Human nature, and yes, a conflict of interest, was the mistake here.
I am slightly biased because I've known Camille for around 18 years and never has any interaction indicated "narcissism." I think that term gets thrown around too easily by the same kinds of people who stigmatize mental health, like the OP stating "this is a sign of mental illness."
Despite some admitted bias, I am open to finding the "truth" of the situation.
Put down the pitchforks for a minute. I've been digging into this article and the Wikipedia links it includes. While I've never been into editing Wikipedia myself, just looking at at this reminds me of posting on LetsRun. The rules and moderation of those rules are all subjective. Wikipedia has never been a completely reliable source of information for this exact reason. I thought that was common sense.
Unless someone can point out something I'm missing, from what I see is the reason the Temporun73 account was banned was because of "edit warring," which would involve more than one user's account. Basically, 2 or more editors adding/reverting back and forth without seeking a better resolution.
The other stuff like editing others' pages doesn't show anything that nefarious...again, unless I am missing something, she/they removed info that was "fluffery" (again a subjective rule) or clarified info, such as records that were pending.
And she or they added to her own profile things that were deemed promotional, which got deleted. Just like plenty of people here get their posts deleted all the time. There is a wide range of reasons posts get banned. Human nature, and yes, a conflict of interest, was the mistake here.
I am slightly biased because I've known Camille for around 18 years and never has any interaction indicated "narcissism." I think that term gets thrown around too easily by the same kinds of people who stigmatize mental health, like the OP stating "this is a sign of mental illness."
Despite some admitted bias, I am open to finding the "truth" of the situation.
Why is she allowed to fluff her own wiki page, but deletes the fluff on others? It’s unprofessional, at the very least, and certainly is mean-spirited.
Put down the pitchforks for a minute. I've been digging into this article and the Wikipedia links it includes. While I've never been into editing Wikipedia myself, just looking at at this reminds me of posting on LetsRun. The rules and moderation of those rules are all subjective. Wikipedia has never been a completely reliable source of information for this exact reason. I thought that was common sense.
Unless someone can point out something I'm missing, from what I see is the reason the Temporun73 account was banned was because of "edit warring," which would involve more than one user's account. Basically, 2 or more editors adding/reverting back and forth without seeking a better resolution.
The other stuff like editing others' pages doesn't show anything that nefarious...again, unless I am missing something, she/they removed info that was "fluffery" (again a subjective rule) or clarified info, such as records that were pending.
And she or they added to her own profile things that were deemed promotional, which got deleted. Just like plenty of people here get their posts deleted all the time. There is a wide range of reasons posts get banned. Human nature, and yes, a conflict of interest, was the mistake here.
I am slightly biased because I've known Camille for around 18 years and never has any interaction indicated "narcissism." I think that term gets thrown around too easily by the same kinds of people who stigmatize mental health, like the OP stating "this is a sign of mental illness."
Despite some admitted bias, I am open to finding the "truth" of the situation.
But you are a moderator here and you should probably stay out of this if you admit you cannot be objective as you are biased, as you say. So then your contribution is going to be considered almost an attempt to defend her. I think her alleged behavior shows poor character. Your attempt to euphemistically define her behavior as human nature is absurd.
Put down the pitchforks for a minute. I've been digging into this article and the Wikipedia links it includes. While I've never been into editing Wikipedia myself, just looking at at this reminds me of posting on LetsRun. The rules and moderation of those rules are all subjective. Wikipedia has never been a completely reliable source of information for this exact reason. I thought that was common sense.
Sounds like someone who just enjoys being a contrarian. Read the room and think about right vs wrong.
Put down the pitchforks for a minute. I've been digging into this article and the Wikipedia links it includes. While I've never been into editing Wikipedia myself, just looking at at this reminds me of posting on LetsRun. The rules and moderation of those rules are all subjective. Wikipedia has never been a completely reliable source of information for this exact reason. I thought that was common sense.
Unless someone can point out something I'm missing, from what I see is the reason the Temporun73 account was banned was because of "edit warring," which would involve more than one user's account. Basically, 2 or more editors adding/reverting back and forth without seeking a better resolution.
The other stuff like editing others' pages doesn't show anything that nefarious...again, unless I am missing something, she/they removed info that was "fluffery" (again a subjective rule) or clarified info, such as records that were pending.
And she or they added to her own profile things that were deemed promotional, which got deleted. Just like plenty of people here get their posts deleted all the time. There is a wide range of reasons posts get banned. Human nature, and yes, a conflict of interest, was the mistake here.
I am slightly biased because I've known Camille for around 18 years and never has any interaction indicated "narcissism." I think that term gets thrown around too easily by the same kinds of people who stigmatize mental health, like the OP stating "this is a sign of mental illness."
Despite some admitted bias, I am open to finding the "truth" of the situation.
well, I posted earlier that I find her behavior "petty and pathetic" but also not the worst transgression out there (e.g., doping, course-cutting, etc). So I'm not at all carrying a pitchfork but I'll push back on your point. She was editing her own bio to make it more self-promotional, and editing others' bios to remove the kind of "fluffery" that she was adding to her own. It's akin to Kevin Durant's burner twitter accounts he used to defend himself (while pretending to be someone else): it's not the worst thing in the world but it's thin-skinned, petty and reflects badly. She also got banned for the editing she was trying to do (kept trying to add stuff that the higher editors disallowed) -- wiki is far more professionally-managed than LRC, so let's drop the bogus parallels -- then immediately created a new account to do the same stuff she was reprimanded/banned for. It's weak sauce to say the least.
well, I posted earlier that I find her behavior "petty and pathetic" but also not the worst transgression out there (e.g., doping, course-cutting, etc). So I'm not at all carrying a pitchfork but I'll push back on your point. She was editing her own bio to make it more self-promotional, and editing others' bios to remove the kind of "fluffery" that she was adding to her own. It's akin to Kevin Durant's burner twitter accounts he used to defend himself (while pretending to be someone else): it's not the worst thing in the world but it's thin-skinned, petty and reflects badly. She also got banned for the editing she was trying to do (kept trying to add stuff that the higher editors disallowed) -- wiki is far more professionally-managed than LRC, so let's drop the bogus parallels -- then immediately created a new account to do the same stuff she was reprimanded/banned for. It's weak sauce to say the least.
Its more than that because there are strict rules on Wikipaedia around editing and adding content. The user needs to be assured that the 'facts' are consistent, referenced and/or corroborated, and not fluffery from a biased person, let alone the subject
Put down the pitchforks for a minute. I've been digging into this article and the Wikipedia links it includes. While I've never been into editing Wikipedia myself, just looking at at this reminds me of posting on LetsRun. The rules and moderation of those rules are all subjective. Wikipedia has never been a completely reliable source of information for this exact reason. I thought that was common sense.
Unless someone can point out something I'm missing, from what I see is the reason the Temporun73 account was banned was because of "edit warring," which would involve more than one user's account. Basically, 2 or more editors adding/reverting back and forth without seeking a better resolution.
The other stuff like editing others' pages doesn't show anything that nefarious...again, unless I am missing something, she/they removed info that was "fluffery" (again a subjective rule) or clarified info, such as records that were pending.
And she or they added to her own profile things that were deemed promotional, which got deleted. Just like plenty of people here get their posts deleted all the time. There is a wide range of reasons posts get banned. Human nature, and yes, a conflict of interest, was the mistake here.
I am slightly biased because I've known Camille for around 18 years and never has any interaction indicated "narcissism." I think that term gets thrown around too easily by the same kinds of people who stigmatize mental health, like the OP stating "this is a sign of mental illness."
Despite some admitted bias, I am open to finding the "truth" of the situation.
Why is she allowed to fluff her own wiki page, but deletes the fluff on others? It’s unprofessional, at the very least, and certainly is mean-spirited.
Where did I say she should be allowed to do that? I said it was the mistake. I completely agree with it being against the rules and not allowed. I just don't see it as a huge crime to argue on the internet, which is essentially what she was doing.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
well, I posted earlier that I find her behavior "petty and pathetic" but also not the worst transgression out there (e.g., doping, course-cutting, etc). So I'm not at all carrying a pitchfork but I'll push back on your point. She was editing her own bio to make it more self-promotional, and editing others' bios to remove the kind of "fluffery" that she was adding to her own. It's akin to Kevin Durant's burner twitter accounts he used to defend himself (while pretending to be someone else): it's not the worst thing in the world but it's thin-skinned, petty and reflects badly. She also got banned for the editing she was trying to do (kept trying to add stuff that the higher editors disallowed) -- wiki is far more professionally-managed than LRC, so let's drop the bogus parallels -- then immediately created a new account to do the same stuff she was reprimanded/banned for. It's weak sauce to say the least.
Its more than that because there are strict rules on Wikipaedia around editing and adding content. The user needs to be assured that the 'facts' are consistent, referenced and/or corroborated, and not fluffery from a biased person, let alone the subject
Okay, but why does any of this warrant being "canceled" or fired from her sponsors? Is she sponsored by Wikipedia? Wikipedia is just a website.
Put down the pitchforks for a minute. I've been digging into this article and the Wikipedia links it includes. While I've never been into editing Wikipedia myself, just looking at at this reminds me of posting on LetsRun. The rules and moderation of those rules are all subjective. Wikipedia has never been a completely reliable source of information for this exact reason. I thought that was common sense.
Unless someone can point out something I'm missing, from what I see is the reason the Temporun73 account was banned was because of "edit warring," which would involve more than one user's account. Basically, 2 or more editors adding/reverting back and forth without seeking a better resolution.
The other stuff like editing others' pages doesn't show anything that nefarious...again, unless I am missing something, she/they removed info that was "fluffery" (again a subjective rule) or clarified info, such as records that were pending.
And she or they added to her own profile things that were deemed promotional, which got deleted. Just like plenty of people here get their posts deleted all the time. There is a wide range of reasons posts get banned. Human nature, and yes, a conflict of interest, was the mistake here.
I am slightly biased because I've known Camille for around 18 years and never has any interaction indicated "narcissism." I think that term gets thrown around too easily by the same kinds of people who stigmatize mental health, like the OP stating "this is a sign of mental illness."
Despite some admitted bias, I am open to finding the "truth" of the situation.
But you are a moderator here and you should probably stay out of this if you admit you cannot be objective as you are biased, as you say. So then your contribution is going to be considered almost an attempt to defend her. I think her alleged behavior shows poor character. Your attempt to euphemistically define her behavior as human nature is absurd.
I meant that human nature, as in her ego (which all humans have), contributed to adding her own "fluff." I'm not using it as an excuse and I agree that the content goes against Wikipedia's rules and why it goes against the rules.
Where did I say she should be allowed to do that? I said it was the mistake. I completely agree with it being against the rules and not allowed. I just don't see it as a huge crime to argue on the internet, which is essentially what she was doing.
Yeah, okay. My reading comprehension sucks. Making a second account to continue the trollish behavior was a very bad choice. The internet does like to make mountains out of molehills, but I still think this behavior is terrible. It’s a premeditated agenda, not simply a poor choice made when drunk af.
I take back my comment about you turning in your mod privileges. I was just being an a$$.
Its more than that because there are strict rules on Wikipaedia around editing and adding content. The user needs to be assured that the 'facts' are consistent, referenced and/or corroborated, and not fluffery from a biased person, let alone the subject
Okay, but why does any of this warrant being "canceled" or fired from her sponsors? Is she sponsored by Wikipedia? Wikipedia is just a website.
I don’t care about whether she remains sponsored but she appears to have little integrity. It reminds me of a former President who used to call in to radio shows, pretending to be his own assistant, and praising himself but pretending that it was his assistant praising him. So Camille is trying to make herself sound more impressive but then diminishing the stature or achievements of others. To me it is reprehensible. Is it a crime? Maybe not a crime but it shows that she is the kind of person who is a bully and entirely self absorbed such that she engages in deceptive practices and sows chaos within the world of ultramarathoning by undermining others and promoting herself.
Where did I say she should be allowed to do that? I said it was the mistake. I completely agree with it being against the rules and not allowed. I just don't see it as a huge crime to argue on the internet, which is essentially what she was doing.
Yeah, okay. My reading comprehension sucks. Making a second account to continue the trollish behavior was a very bad choice. The internet does like to make mountains out of molehills, but I still think this behavior is terrible. It’s a premeditated agenda, not simply a poor choice made when drunk af.
I take back my comment about you turning in your mod privileges. I was just being an a$.
That's okay. It's just another example of how easy it is to skim a post or article online and jump to conclusions quickly. I'm just trying to encourage everyone to slow down and think for themselves before reacting. Does the crime justify the punishment? Personally, I don't think we have enough information to really know yet.
But you are a moderator here and you should probably stay out of this if you admit you cannot be objective as you are biased, as you say. So then your contribution is going to be considered almost an attempt to defend her. I think her alleged behavior shows poor character. Your attempt to euphemistically define her behavior as human nature is absurd.
I meant that human nature, as in her ego (which all humans have), contributed to adding her own "fluff." I'm not using it as an excuse and I agree that the content goes against Wikipedia's rules and why it goes against the rules.
Do you know is it common for people to be providing content for their own Wikipedia entries? Imagine if you found out that Kenenisa Bekele were embellishing his own already impressive achievements in a Wikipedia entry and then disparaging the achievements of Eliud Kipchoge in Eliud’s entry. It would seem as if he were trolling at best and at worst you might wonder if Kenenisa was OK in terms of his adjustments to life itself.
Okay, but why does any of this warrant being "canceled" or fired from her sponsors? Is she sponsored by Wikipedia? Wikipedia is just a website.
I don’t care about whether she remains sponsored but she appears to have little integrity. It reminds me of a former President who used to call in to radio shows, pretending to be his own assistant, and praising himself but pretending that it was his assistant praising him. So Camille is trying to make herself sound more impressive but then diminishing the stature or achievements of others. To me it is reprehensible. Is it a crime? Maybe not a crime but it shows that she is the kind of person who is a bully and entirely self absorbed such that she engages in deceptive practices and sows chaos within the world of ultramarathoning by undermining others and promoting herself.
What is the deceptive practice you are referring to? I am not asking to argue with you. I genuinely want to make sure I am not missing something. I saw she removed content that was against the rules from another athlete's page (nothing wrong with that). However, she added similar content to her own page (wrong to do, which is why it was deleted).
Its more than that because there are strict rules on Wikipaedia around editing and adding content. The user needs to be assured that the 'facts' are consistent, referenced and/or corroborated, and not fluffery from a biased person, let alone the subject
Okay, but why does any of this warrant being "canceled" or fired from her sponsors? Is she sponsored by Wikipedia? Wikipedia is just a website.
'Just' one of the most trusted website. If I was a sponsor I wouldn't want an association with someone that does this.
You are rather naive or doing what mods do well, i.e. trolling their own site to generate clicks