Talk:Nadya Okamoto

Possible conflict of interest

I have removed the {{COI}} tag because it was added with no indication of the evidence for conflict of interest (WP:COI). I have left in place the {{like resume}} tag; in my opinion, it does indeed currently read like a resume. From the documentation for the {{COI}} tag (emphasis in the original):

Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning. Be careful not to violate the policy against WP:OUTING users who have not publicly self-disclosed their identities on the English Wikipedia.

[...]

This tag may be removed by editors who do not have a conflict of interest after the problem is resolved, if the problem is not explained on the article's talk page, and/or if no current attempts to resolve the problem can be found.

My removal of the tag is without prejudice to its replacement if an appropriate discussion is started on this talk page.

—Syrenka V (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Add the COI back! She is clearly editing this page herself - look at the edit history. Her victims will not be silenced! CommentingOnThis (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Single-purpose account (SPA) participation

Hello @Joe Decker: Thank you for contesting the proposed deletion of this article. I agree with your comment (in an edit summary) that "Sources may be enough to reach WP:BASIC"; preliminary Google searching suggests that even WP:GNG could be reached.

Regardless of notability, however, this article has clearly had substantial participation from multiple single-purpose accounts (SPAs) and IP addresses. This is true not only of edits adding positive information about the subject, but also of critical ones. Bizarrely, the WP:PROD tag that you removed was added by an SPA (see diff 1), and adding that tag was that account's sole edit so far (see contribution history 1). The {{COI}} template that I removed (see above) was added by an IP address (see diff 2). I would like to clean up this article, but I'm frankly reluctant to waste effort on what would (IMO) likely degenerate into an edit war with multiple SPAs and IP addresses. I would be more willing to work on this page if it were protected; preferably, since the history is not merely of transient vandalism, if it were given extended confirmed protection rather than semi-protection.

At this point I've gained a fair amount of experience with AfD discussions and WP:PROD, but none with requests for page protection. I see that you're an administrator and an experienced user. I would like to hear your opinion on whether protection of this page is justified by its history in the light of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and (which is not quite the same question) what would be the likely response to a request for page protection at WP:RPP.

—Syrenka V (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Syrenka V: - Not sure what I'd do at RFPP but there's no harm in asking--pending changes might also be a possibility. I'm sorry I haven't looked at this deeper, work has kept me pretty busy the last couple days. --joe decker^talk 15:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Joe Decker:—Thanks, I've given it a shot. I've requested indefinite WP:BLUELOCK since most of the editors involved are registered SPAs who already pass 4/10 and would be unaffected by WP:SILVERLOCK. But the warnings on WP:RPP indicate reluctance to impose even WP:SILVERLOCK on an indefinite basis, and yet more reluctance to grant extended confirmed protection without trying semi-protection first. Frankly, these rules might be reasonable for handling vandalism, but they make absolutely no sense to me when applied to cases like this one, involving WP:BLP and bias rather than vandalism. I can only hope that practice is more reasonable than theory. I've seen that happen sometimes on Wikipedia.

—Syrenka V (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, that was quick: flatly declined, with the comment "Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection."

—Syrenka V (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

So it goes. I have added the article to my watchlist, for what good that will do, and will try and keep an eye out for misbehavior. Thanks. --joe decker^talk 00:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Joe Decker:—Thanks so much! I'm in the process of writing a draft userspace essay on this type of situation: Protection not deletion, although this is the first time I've ever gone beyond theorizing and actually requested page protection (for any page). I thought it was worth a try, especially since I've seen cases where the interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines in practice has differed widely from my reading of them. But the result confirms my impression that major changes in policy will be needed to set these matters right. (And IMO this page is a paradigm case of how dysfunctional presently accepted policies are.)

—Syrenka V (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppets supressed info to help her make brand deals

Thankfully Nadya has been prevented from making fake accounts to edit her page - however she succeeded in removing the controversy section as well as moving the information about her resignation and horrible wrongdoings to the bottom part of her Wikipedia where nobody will see it + so it is not shown in her knowledge panel. She is doing this to salvage her reputation and continue getting brand deals. On behalf of her victims I ask if the editors of this page can recitify these wrongdoings - you can look at the edit history and see that all the accounts were made within a day and only edited her page - proving that it was all sock puppetry. They added extra information to make her look good and buried the substantiated allegations that are well documented in reputable sources. CommentingOnThis (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi @CommentingOnThis: Separate "Controversy" sections are generally discouraged in articles because they tend to lead to violations of the neutral point of view policy. At present, the allegations against Okamoto are covered both in the lede and under the "Career" heading. With that in mind, are there are any changes that you wish to make? Conifer (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Her lead had been edited yet again so that when you google her you cannot see the very important information that she is no longer part of Period because of her misconduct !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamveryhurt (talk • contribs) 15:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2020

this line is not factually correct - She resigned from Period in 2020; fellow activists accused her of misconduct and exaggerating her experiences with housing instability.[4]

a line later in the entry contradicts it - On January 29, 2020, Okamoto announced that she had stepped down from Period Inc. as Executive Director;

the page needs to also include the independent review findings that were published by the org In September of 2020, PERIOD published a third-party report conducted by Dragonfly Partners on the allegations. The report states that Dragonfly Partners conducted a full review of all relevant documents and communications regarding the allegations, and shares that Okamoto took “advantage of every opportunity to tell her story in social media, print media, and speaking engagements and inspired many young activists.” It also states that the organization’s “growth has been rapid and somewhat haphazard allowing plenty of opportunities for mistakes to be made.” https://www.instagram.com/p/CFF2Ky8Bf7M/

thx Agsfdet (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. Nor do those two lines appear to contradict each other. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Agsfdet: I'm not sure which part you're deeming to be factually incorrect – Okamoto did in fact leave Period in 2020. Are you saying that her resignation as Executive Director, which preceded the misconduct allegations, should be treated separately from her departure from the organization entirely?

Yes. she resigned as executive director and was not an employee before the allegations happened.

With regard to the independent review findings, please provide a link to the report itself (not just an Instagram blurb). The link provided on that post actually returns a 404 page. Conifer (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

This article explains that it is factually correct that PERIOD "cut ties with Nadya": https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/07/29/a-portland-student-became-the-face-of-the-menstrual-equity-movement-others-say-she-silenced-them-to-become-famous/. She stepped down as Executive Director but was still employed by them + after all of the allegations surfaced, they cut all ties with her so that she could no longer work with them at all + profit off of the harms she created Iamveryhurt (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

ordering of this page is currently bias

The way that this page is currently ordered is bias. The beginning of the page seems to be ordered only to include the allegations against Nadya most other biography pages put the main positions and awards at the top (along with any further details about career). This one has not included any of the positive career aspects at the top.

In the article that was written from wweek about Nadya exaggerating her housing instability experience, that article also clarifies that her actual experience does, in fact, fit the federal definition of homelessness. Yet, that is not included.

I just think that this is unfair - especially given that you can see that many of the edits for order and above are clearly against her. Even from above, in one of the edit subjects, where it refers to people working to help as sockpuppets. If this is going to stick to the guidelines of being a neutral biography post, that needs to be changed.

Agsfdet (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Deacon Vorbis (talk)

These sentences need to be moved up for the intro to be ordered in more of a chronological order:

Nadya Okamoto (born February 11, 1998) is an American social entrepreneur and activist, known as the founder and former executive director of the non-profit organization Period Inc.[1] In 2018, Okamoto published her debut book, Period Power: A Manifesto for the Menstrual Movement with publisher Simon & Schuster, which made the Kirkus Reviews list for Best Young Adult Nonfiction of 2018.[24]

Okamoto first received the Women of Worth award in 2017, as one of the ten national honorees.[25] In November 2019, Okamoto was awarded the L'Oréal Women of Worth award at the annual Glamour Women of the Year ceremony.[26] In December 2019, Okamoto was named one of Forbes 30 Under 30 in law and policy.[27]

In 2017, Okamoto launched an unsuccessful bid for a seat on the Cambridge City Council.[3]

And this sentence, should live in the 'career' section - as it would in any of the other biological pages:

She left Period in 2020 after fellow activists accused her of misconduct and exaggerating her experiences with housing instability.[2]

need to reorganize page

The way that this page is currently ordered is bias. The beginning of the page seems to be ordered only to include the allegations against Nadya most other biography pages put the main positions and awards at the top (along with any further details about career). This one has not included any of the positive career aspects at the top. In the article that was written from wweek about Nadya exaggerating her housing instability experience, that article also clarifies that her actual experience does, in fact, fit the federal definition of homelessness. Yet, that is not included. I just think that this is unfair - especially given that you can see that many of the edits for order and above are clearly against her. Even from above, in one of the edit subjects, where it refers to people working to help as sockpuppets. If this is going to stick to the guidelines of being a neutral biography post, that needs to be changed.

These sentences need to be moved up for the intro to be ordered in more of a chronological order: Nadya Okamoto (born February 11, 1998) is an American social entrepreneur and activist, known as the founder and former executive director of the non-profit organization Period Inc.[1] In 2018, Okamoto published her debut book, Period Power: A Manifesto for the Menstrual Movement with publisher Simon & Schuster, which made the Kirkus Reviews list for Best Young Adult Nonfiction of 2018.[24] Okamoto first received the Women of Worth award in 2017, as one of the ten national honorees.[25] In November 2019, Okamoto was awarded the L'Oréal Women of Worth award at the annual Glamour Women of the Year ceremony.[26] In December 2019, Okamoto was named one of Forbes 30 Under 30 in law and policy.[27] In 2017, Okamoto launched an unsuccessful bid for a seat on the Cambridge City Council.[3] And this sentence, should live in the 'career' section - as it would in any of the other biological pages: She left Period in 2020 after fellow activists accused her of misconduct and exaggerating her experiences with housing instability.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agsfdet (talk • contribs) 15:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)