Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:37, 17 May 2019

10 May 2019

Chuck Whittall (closed)

Olympia Nelson

Olympia Nelson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The administrator who closed the AFD, Seraphimblade, declined, when I requested userification, saying those who called for deletion had claimed their opinion was justified by BLP.

While it is true that the nominator and two contributors who weighed in, did say they were basing their opinions on BLP, specifically BLP1E, those claims were transparently incorrect, as Nelson clearly had two events in her young life, separated by half a decade.

Note: the nominator and one of the two contributors who voiced delete were indefinitely blocked for long term disruptive editing, not long after this AFD closed.

I am requesting userification of the article, and its talk page too, please. Geo Swan (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I can't see the article as I don't have admin vision but reading over that AfD I have to say that numerous comments, both in response to others and unprompted, by the appellant shouldn't hide that the consensus was correctly assessed. If there are BLP issues, especially about someone who would have been a child in what was being written about, that would indeed argue against allowing the article to be userified. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
• Allow userfication. The arguments about BLP1E seem to be that the first event (being a naked model) is notable but the second (being the author of an op-ed) isn't, and the first event should be covered on her mother's article - this seems to me to be an argument for a merge and redirect (or just a redirect if everything is covered there already) rather than deletion, and this would leave the history available for if/when she does something else that is clearly notable. If on the other hand we accept that the second event is also notable then BLP1E is not a reason for deletion. A large part of the motivation for nomination does seem to be "a creepy person was linking to this article", which is not a reason for deletion (if it was we'd be deleting large swathes of the encyclopaedia). Given all this, the poorly attended AfD (of the four users expressing opinions two have since been blocked, and both of them seem to have spent considerable energy hounding the article's principle contributor), that the discussion is 18 months old, and none of the comments seem to be alleging the article was a BLP violation (and I don't see anything obvious in a scan of the deleted article), I don't see a reason not to allow userfication if Geo Swan wants to work on improving it. Thryduulf (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Google keeps tuning its search engine to make it more useful for general readers - which has meant seriously eroding its usefulness for serious users, like wikipedia contributors. When I worked on the article, in 2017, I found a relatively large number of both serious newspapers republishing her op-ed, or commenting on her op-ed, or both. And I found multiple scholars, writing about the peer-pressure teenage girls experienced, who quoted her - the only actual articulate teenage girl to write something really notable about this issue.

    My recollection is that I thought the op-ed was the more important event.

    When I approached Seraphimblade I looked for an email address for Ms Nelson, or reasonable equivalent. I found an online presence, told her I thought her article could be restored. When an individual's notability is near the cusp of our inclusion criteria, we generally agree to delete, as a courtesy, when the BLP subject requests deletion. I offered to email her the last version of the article, and told her I would not work to get it restored, if she was uncomfortable about being covered. I figure she is near enough to the cusp to offer this courtesy prior to doing more work on it.

    Of course I won't be able to follow through on this offer if I can't get access to a copy. Geo Swan (talk) 01:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

You have a copy of the article on another wiki and recently edited it so clearly was aware of it so what are you talking aboutSpartaz 21:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse An I the on!y one who thinks contacting the subject is a bit creepy. Spartaz 11:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

No. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse the deletion and User:Seraphimblade’s discretion to decline userfication. Perhaps a better forum for this is WP:BLPN. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse and deny userfication. Maybe there's no harm in userfying this, but when the subject is a minor and the topic is controversial, the bar is higher than "maybe there's no harm". -- RoySmith (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • RoySmith What controversy are you referring to? In 2005, when I was a newbie, another contributor challenged an article I had started on a Guantanamo captive, claiming that the topic of Guantanamo was "inherently biased", and "just an excuse for POV America-bashing".

    Topics, themselves, aren't inherently biased. The RS that cover notable topics can be biased, which is why we have rules and guidelines that help us prepare neutrally written summaries of what those RS say. When we follow our rules there is no topic so controversial it can't be covered here. If you are an administrator, who can read the article for yourself, I think you can see there never was anything controversial about the article. Ms Nelson was at the center of a controvery, which I think the article covered in a fair and neutral manner.

    RoySmith, there is a sad phenomenon I will warn you about. Some contributors WP:CRYBLP misleadingly, to promote their own POV. About a decade ago I came across an AFD of a woman who had made herself a public spokeperson for reform of her state's draconian laws on sex offenders. This grandmother was, technically, a sex offender, because she let the father of her pregnant daughter's child move in, so they could save money to get married, when her daughter was still a minor. This grandmother clearly measured up to GNG, having appeared on national TV, and having a profile in the Economist. Those arguing for deletion claimed that BLP required deletion, to protect her reputation, as it was damaging to her to describe her a sex offender. This argument was incredibly disrespectful to that grandmother, who had made a conscious choice to sacrifice her privacy to serve as a public spokesperson. In this particular case "protecting" her would have been damaging to her. Her state did reform its laws on sex crimes, and the grandmother was finally allowed to meet her grandchildren.

    I suggest that claiming BLP required deletion of Olympia Nelson was a similar instance where a claim that BLP was protecting someone actually served the opposite goal. Ms Nelson gave a very articulate defence of her late mother, when she was attacked by conservative politician, in 2008. She continues to hold those views now that she is an adult. RoySmith, if you thought the original AFD was over a genuine BLP controversy, I think you were misled.

    Please remember WP:Misplaced Pages is not censored. Geo Swan (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse and deny userification Authoring an op-ed doesn't really grant anyone notability anywhere. The XfD discussion is badly bludgeoned, but consensus is clear, and there's really no other way to close that discussion. I would also deny userification for the reasons noted above. SportingFlyer T·C 23:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse with a certain amount of disgust. I have the feeling that I have come in to the middle of something ugly, and I don't know what to say. Therefore in the absence of any indication that the closer made a mistake, I will assume that the closer either made the only possible close or made a valid close. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse as I see no fatal flaw in the close and it is a reasonable read of this heavily bludgeoned discussion. Refuse userification as there is no need as it isn't likely the person will break out of BLP1E any time soon, and so the BLP ramifications take priority over the editor's desire to keep the page in user space. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
• relist I hate to reward the bludgeoning, but I'd like to see a more meaningful discussion. There is a valid argument that there are two significant events here (though obviously one is based on the other) and the low-profile part is debatable. I suspect we'll end up in the same place, but with firmer footing. That said, GS needs to understand that bludgeoning like that hurts their cause a lot more than it helps it. Hobit (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• Relist per Hobit. The quality of the AFD is ghastly, both for the bludgeoning on one side and the formulaic invocation of BLP1E, without meaningfully applying the actual criteria of BLP1E, on the other. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse and deny userfication. The deletion debate seems to cover the bases, nothing's really changed in the two years since, and whether or not the subject wants an article isn't really germane to the debate. It's classic WP:BLP1E and I don't see any potential for restoration that would even justify userfying.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

update

Spartaz and SmokeyJoe both wrote that they thought it was creepy of me to contact Ms Nelson, to find out whether she was comfortable being covered in a wikipedia article. Frankly I think it was a lapse from our conventions on civility and collegiality for them to voice their opinion on my character in DRV. I think the DRV should be confined to voicing opinions on whether or not policy supports my request. I left my reply at User talk:Spartaz#I dispute I was creepy. Geo Swan (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, not sorry. It's deeply creepy and you should find less marginal people to impose your articles on. You know where ani is I'm sure if you still want to disagree. Spartaz 21:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree with Spartaz. It's absolutely creepy. Take me to ANI as well if you wish. SportingFlyer T·C 21:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Clarification, Spartaz and SmokeyJoe, you do realize that neither one of gave a policy based reason for opposing userification? Don't our body of policies and procedures and long-standing conventions around civility and collegiality call upon all of us to refrain from attacking one another's character during editorial discussions? Don't they call upon us to restrict ourselves to arguments and counter-arguments that are based on our policies, and long-standing conventions? Since you haven't offered any policy based arguments should the closing administrator assume you don't have any? Geo Swan (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• The page was deleted per the AfD, under WP:Deletion policy. Userfication of deleted content is not a right, and is within discretion for the request to be denied. Here we are proceeding under the policy WP:Consensus. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• I've reached out to BLP subjects before (authors, artists) in the hope that they had sources I didn't. I don't get the sense any of them felt I was being creepy. Given the nature of this BLP subject, I can understand the thought, but in general I personally don't see an issue. I'm curious what makes others see it as problematic. Is it the nature of this BLP or a more general thing? Hobit (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Honestly, I believe it's a combination of the specific nature of this BLP, exacerbated by the bludgeoning. SportingFlyer T·C 22:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Contacting a subject about their Misplaced Pages biography is not in general creepy. The difference is this being after the AfD deletion, which many subjects take as an insult, where being contacted by a Misplaced Pages editor is in some form a negotiation with that editor bargaining to get the subjects page re-created. What does the Misplaced Pages editor want from the subject? Will the subject feel some subtle pressure to provide? Will the subject then be in the debt of that editor? And the controversy is their controversial nude childhood photography. Creepy is an ill-defined word, it speaks to how someone feels. I do not feel comfortable with editors contacting subjects of deleted articles soliciting information or permissions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Makes sense. Hobit (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • In some other instances, subjects have been contacted, to see if they possibly would be embarrassed. (in the only one I can immediately recall, the person said they'd have no objections) I know that I personally would be very reluctant to actively push to get an article for someone who is not really a public individual and of arguably borderline notability, such that their preference would be taken into account in an afd. It might be tricky how to ask, but I think it is both permissible and relevant. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    • In a case like this, post-AfD-deletion, involving public controversy about sensitivities, and the subject involved in their own media, I think more care should be taken than in general. I think I would prefer anyone making contact to be at least OTRS registered meta:OTRS/Volunteering. I do not support the deleted page being hosted long term in either userspace or draftspace, and I support the denial of userfication. Any decision to re-create should be made on the basis of sourcing, and I repeat that a better forum for discussion of re-creation is WP:BLPN. If the subject is reading this, I would like to point out that she is most welcome to contribute directly in her own words, especially regarding issues of personal sensitivity and any independent sources that we may be unaware of, and I recommend WP:Registering for the purpose of doing this. I am not comfortable with making use of any information provided under an unclear expectation of privacy, such as by private email or conversation.
      I don't agree with asking a person who might be embarrassed if they are embarrassed, as that is a pressure-question. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The controversy, and how to cover it...

SportingFlyer, and several other contributors, have made passing mention to "the controversy", without being specific as to what it was, and without being specific as to how they see a problem in providing neutral coverage of it, here on the wikipedia.

It is generally not our job to take sides in public controversies. When topics are well referenced, if we try hard enough, we should be able to agree on neutral wording in our coverage of controversies. Various wikidocuments provide guidance in how to use RS with a point of view, and summarize, paraphrase or quote them in ways that provides a neutral tone. For what it is worth I thought the Olympia Nelson article measured up to that standard when it was nominated, and when it was deleted.

So, the controversy was that Ms Nelson's mother was a prominent artist, who believed in free artistic expression. When Ms Nelson was 6 her mother, the artist, had her replicate a pose from a 19th Century photo Lewis Carroll/Charles Dodgson had one of his models pose for. As in Dodgson's original photo Ms Nelson is not wearing any clothes. As in Dodgson's original photo, her knees block her chest and groin area. In 2008, when Ms Nelson was 11 several Australian politicians denounced her mother over these photos, and Ms Nelson offered an articulate defence of her mother's artistic choices.

Note: there was nothing genuinely controversial about the Olympia Nelson article itself. The controversy was in question concerned different opinions as to whether her mother should have taken the photo, and having taken it, how she should have displayed it.

Now, if we were discussing whether to cover the photos, the politician's criticism of them, and Ms Nelson's defence of them, in 2008, when the politicians made their criticism, an argument could be made that Ms Nelson might have been brain-washed, that she was a victim, that her defence of her mother shouldn't be taken at face value. But she is 22 or 23 years old now, an artist and musician herself, who, it seems to me from a recent keynote address she gave at an art exhibition which included unclothed subjects, that she continues to support her late mother's artistic choices. Here is her keynote. The audio is muddy, I think the first 20-30 seconds are about her and her mom. The remainder of the video spends about 20-30 seconds on the half dozen artists with works at the exhibition. The title of the exhibition was "Skin Thing". I think the organizers asked her to give the keynote specifically because they knew people in Australia remembered her mother's stand. And I think Ms Nelson would not have agreed to deliver the keynote if she didn't still support her mother's stand.

My guess about the meaning of her delivering the keynote might be wrong. Which is why I told her I would not try to get the article restored, if she didn't want it restored.

In my opinion anyone who thinks we should censor coverage of the photos, to protect Ms Nelson, even though she voiced support of her mother's artistic choices, is not actually protecting her at all. Rather, isn't this a lapse from neutrality, and siding with her mother's critics? Geo Swan (talk) 09:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Since you've pinged me, show me exactly where I used the word controversy. All I have commented on are whether the deletion was proper (it was) and your conduct in terms of contacting a subject on a sensitive issue after a completed AfD. This is not a relitigation of the AfD, nor is this "censoring." It's a rather sensitive WP:BLP1E. You would do well to stop bludgeoning the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 11:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • SportingFlyer, the WP:BLUDGEON essay is new to me. Are you going to consider it bludgeoning if I point out to you that the fact that you keep crying BLP1E, when, in both the original AFD, and here in the DRV, it was made very clear Ms Nelson had two significant events, in 2008 and 2013, seems to suggest you didn't read the discussions thoroughly? I suggest to you that, if you choose to leave an opinion in a discussion, you have an obligation to do your best to leave an informed opinion.

    As for protecting Ms Nelson, did you look at her most recent YouTube video, which I linked to above? She gave the keynote address at the 2018 opening of an art exhibit called "Skin Thing". I offered my interpretation of that video -- that she continues to support her mother's artistic choices. That would make protection an intrusive censoring of an articulate person. Geo Swan (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• • • Considering you contributed a majority of the text in the AfD, you're on pace to contribute a majority of the text in this deletion review, and it's contributing to the difficulty of discussing the deletion in the context of whether delete was an appropriate outcome/whether userification should be granted by throwing out tangents on censoring, I would absolutely call it bludgeoning. I also am familiar with the discussion and, in my informed opinion, I disagree with you. SportingFlyer T·C 00:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Good Lord, what an inappropriately personalised debate this has been. In the course of doing my background reading for this debate I've encountered nude pictures of a child, which to my relief were tasteful and appropriate.

  I think the community was right to decide not to have an article about this person.

  I've looked at DRVPURPOSE to see whether we should be reviewing the decision whether or not to userfy, and I'm not sure that that decision is strictly within scope for this page ---- but there should be a place, and if not here, then where? We might usefully have a discussion about expanding DRVPURPOSE a bit to cover this point.

  If we should be reviewing that decision, then I think it's unusual, and rather harsh, to refuse to userfy deleted content. It could possibly be justified under WP:BLPTALK if any of the material in the deleted article was potentially controversial or defamatory. The fact that this girl appeared in tasteful and appropriate nude photographs at a young age is uncontroversial and not defamatory.—S Marshall T/C 16:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Completely bogus BLP1E claim

Amakuru, the most recent person to weigh in here, has also repeated the completely bogus BLP1E claim. The trigger for Ms Nelson having the Australian Broadcasting Corporation devoting an entire episode of a public affairs show to her story was the 2013 op-ed she wrote, an op-ed that was republished around the world, that triggered commentary around the world. This was clearly a SECOND EVENT.

I will be deeply dissatisfied by any closure of this DRV that echoes the frequently repeated but clearly bogus claim that the original closure of the AFD was correct, because Nelson was a BLP1E, when she was clearly known for multiple events.

It seems to me that when an administrator closes an AFD, or a DRV, good faith contributors should be able to read their closure, and be able to figure out if and when there are conditions the article can be recreated. Rarely an administrator will conclude the article should never be recreated, and they will SALT the name. In practically every other case possible recreation is implied, if conditions change. Every person who has claimed BLP1E is implying that the Olympia Nelson article could be recreated if she became known for a second event, or multiple events. And, these opinions are deeply bogus, as Ms Nelson is ALREADY KNOWN FOR MULTIPLE EVENTS. Geo Swan (talk) 12:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)