Talk:Nathan Edmondson

Credit card fraud

I'm minded to remove the section on credit card fraud (the section should at least be retitled "Early life") because it isn't clear if this is the same Nathan Edmondson in the news article. There is a picture of the individual on the news article and it doesn't look like any photo of the comics writer that I can find, who has a thinner, longer face. So if anyone can provide a reliable source to link the two individuals then please do so.

If a third party removes the material, then I'd request that it not be added back in without discussion and a consensus here. I can protect the page, but I'd rather not. However, this is a BLP issue and it can't go on like this. Emperor (talk) 03:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nathan Edmondson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301071440/http://workincomicsblog.septagonstudios.com/comic-jobs-interview-series-with-comics-writer-nathan-edmondson/ to http://workincomicsblog.septagonstudios.com/comic-jobs-interview-series-with-comics-writer-nathan-edmondson/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated Contributions

Please mind attempts to include personal information and resist defamatory posts. Seems clear someone is attempting to use Wikipedia for personal reasons. GrantGoodMensch (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Blanking content on personal life, legal troubles, and harassment allegations

Editor DETVB asked me to address an editorial dispute that has arisen regarding this article. I believe that the other editors with whom DETVB has been in dispute, as well as the rest of the editing community, should weigh in. First, here is the communications that DETVB and I exchanged today on my talk page:

Hi, since you're the only editor I've ever been in contact with, and I'm not sure what's the standard procedure here, I decided to bring this to your attention.

There seems to be an ongiong effort by person or persons closely associated with comic book writer Nathan Edmondson to clean his page of any information considered too "unbecoming" or "revealing" not unlike what's going on over at Brian Wood's page.

This is what the article looked like before the purges: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Nathan_Edmondson&oldid=1049696353 done twice in the past 24 hours.

I don't think going back and forth on "undoing" each other's edits is a good way to spend anyone's time, so perhaps there is some other solution to this situation.

Thanks! (DETVB (talk) 12:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC))

@DETVB: Thanks for reaching out to me. You are correct that discussing such things is the correct way to address such conflicts, and not edit warring.

Can you specify here, using diffs, which edits by the other editor(s) you feel are not justified by either Wikipedia policy or the rationales they offered in their edit summaries? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nightscream:

Removal of the section containing information about the subject's (1) publicly available family life details (2) sexual harrasment allegations (removed without explanation back in August) (3) 2005 card fraud arrest (previously dismissed as a "hit piece" created by another contemporary comic book writer (who features prominently in the articles about sexual allegations) despite the source being an Augusta Chronicle article from 2005), repeated here and here.

Removal of the "Early life" section, repeated here and later scaled down to the part about education and year of graduation, possibly because it goes against the continuous unsourced claims of the subject working in "international politics" (2016, today, today again) prior to writing comics.

Removal of the description of the subject's latest work as controversial within the industry (repeated here) despite sources collecting numerous responses from industry participants. Thanks. (DETVB (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

GrantGoodMensch, in blanking this content yesterday, gave as their rationale "No longer a public figure. Irrelevant details and links to blog entries with unsubstantiated information." When blanking it again today, that user wrote "Poorly sourced / NOR personal attacks removed."

Edmondson is a notable figure, which is why he has a Wikipedia article. One does not "cease" to be a public figure, as notability is not temporary. As for the concerns about the quality of the sources ("blog entries") and the substantiation of the claims that consistute serious accusations, I agree that we have to be cautious about them, so I will attempt to examine them here. I will try to offer my viewpoints or pose questions where appropriate.

1. The sexual harassment allegation The two sources for the sexual harassment allegations are a post on Graphic Policy, and an article at Comics Beat. My questions here are:

Is Graphic Policy considered a reliable source?

The post was made by someone named only "Brett". Does this mean that this is a blog-type post? If so, then WP:USERG may deem it not reliable.

Also, the source of the allegation is said to be a writer/editor named Stephanie Cooke. I'm not familiar with Cooke, and the allegations in the post cite a series of 40 tweets by her. I clicked on all 40 of those links, and all of them have now been removed. I tried looking for archived version of them at the Internet Archive, and while I admit I didn't search for all 40 of them, I did look for over half of them. The only one for which I found an archived version was the first one, in which Cooke stated, "I read an article today about the timeline of sexual harassment in comics. Within the article it talks about writer Nathan Edmondson and how no one has yet come forward. And it bothered me."

Aside from this, another tweet below the those of Cooke's is by someone named "Amber Love Ofgus", who tweeted, "I thought "we" (geek ladies) did reveal him a while back, but good for you to having the heart & strength to come fwd. I hung out with him one day and he shoved me to my knees in a hotel hallway. I left. Later found out his wife was preg at home." This tweet is still up, but the account name has been changed to "the 13 Ghosts of Carol Channing Tatum". Again, no details are offered regarding harassing behavior on Edmondson's part.

As for Comics Beat, that is considered a reliable source, but there are few details. Author Heidi MacDonald's statement on Edmondson consists of the following:

"In more serious allegations, as hinted at in the tweets at the Outhouse, is that Edmonson has harassing behavior in his past, although nothing comes up on his internet profile except involvement in a right wing organization called The Leadership Institute, and some youthful credit card fraud. Edmondson is said to be protective of his Google trail however, which is perhaps why everyone hinting and warning about him won’t go 'on the record.'"

"In recent years Edmonson seems to have gone on the 'that guy's an asshole' list, at least as far as hanging out at cons goes. Despite all the talk of secrecy in comics, there is a pretty well known list of guys (and gals and doubtless some in between) who are on this list for boorish convention and barcon behavior. It's not illegal or usually actionable, just annoying and openly gossiped about. And of course the problem with this list is that one person’s asshole is sometimes another person’s friend. And none of this means Edmondson is a bad person or shouldn't be allowed to sit with anyone during lunch. This isn’t illegal or even enough to get you removed from creative gigs although sometimes it doesn’t help. I do know people who aren’t worked with any more by publishers after years of being That Guy."

Unlike Cooke, MacDonald provides no details of specific incidents, and concedes that the allegations in question are fraught with gossip and subjectivity. So my question to DETVB and others is, how should this artice summarize this?

2. Arrest for credit card fraud There are two citations for this material. The original link for the Augusta Chronicle article is dead, but the archived version is viable, and that is a reliable source. That article supports the material in the blanked paragraph. At first I wondered if the Nathan Edmondson in that article and the subject of this Wikipedia article had been establshed to be one and the same, but then I saw that the aforementioned Comics Beat article indicates that they are. So I don't see any justification for removing this.

70.210.56.64, when blanking the material about the arrest in September 2015, gave as their rationale, "This is from a hit piece organized by a writer (Ales Kot)" -- which appears to be a reference to criticism that according to Comics Beat, writer Ales Kot leveled at Edmondson for "upporting right wing, racist causes". However, nothing about the Chronicle article seems to indicate that it is a hit piece, and it was written someone named Timothy Cox, not Ales Kot. Thoughts?

Regarding the previous deletion of this information in September 2015, it also includes a line about how Edmondson's associate the credit card matter was killed in a 2011 hit-and-run incident. The citation is an article at WRDW, that is now a dead link, and I could not find an archived version at the Internet Archive. In any event, it doesn't really pertain to the crime in question, so I don't think this warrants relevant inclusion in Edmondson's article.

3. Residence in Park City, Utah The blanked passage in question read, "He currently lives outside Park City, Utah with his wife and two children." Putting aside the inappropriate use of the dated term "currently", the two citations for this were the About page on Edmondson's own website, and this page on the podcast Agents of Innovation, which interviewed Edmondson. Information such as where a subject lives is common throughout Wikipedia, and is perfectly acceptable, unless the subject explicitly requests the removal of certain details. The fact that Edmondson put the city of his residence on the biography page of his own website means that he obviously doesn't have an issue with this fact being publicly known. The fact that he has a wife and two children, and talks about them in an interview, would seem to indicate that there is no problem with reporting on their mere existence in his Wikipedia article.

4. Home town and alma mater In one of the instances of blanking, Jonesmaree removed the Early life section, offering no rationale for this. That section consisted of the following two sentences:

Edmondson is a native of Augusta, Georgia. He graduated from Mercer University's College of Liberal Arts in 2010 with degrees in art and art history.

The citation for the first sentence is this article at macon.com, which is the website for The Macon Telegraph. That newspaper is easily a reliable source, and that article does support that claim. The two citations for the second sentence are of an interview with Edmondson at Creative Loafing, a monthly magazine based in that city founded 1972, and an article on The Den, which is a website at Mercer University. Both sources appears to be reliable, and both support Edmondson's status as an alumnus of that institution. Indeed, Jonesmaree could've outright removed those two sources from the article entirely, but the diff shows that they instead migrated both citations further down in the article, where they supported other passages via ref name tags. GrantGoodMensch, in repeating this content blanking today, gave as their rationale Irrelevant resume padding personal details removed". Mere mention of where a subject attended college, when they graduated, and what degree they atttained is not "irrelevant", and does not constitute "resume padding," as a subject's education obviously relevant, which is why it is universally found in biographies and reference sources.

5. Director of International Programs International Programs at the Leadership Institute Regarding DETVB's claim that the Early life information may have been removed because it conflicted with claims about Edmondson having worked in international politics, which DETVB says were unsourced, while it does appear that passages on that work were uncited in 2016, there are now at least two citations that do support it. Oddly enough, Jonesmaree edited that section to removal all details about this tenure, changing it to the vague "working in international politics", explaining in their edit summary that they were "clarifying" this work. In fact, removing details has the opposite effect of clarification. There is no reason to remove mention of having worked for that institution, and so I have reverted it.

6. Controversy surrounding work DETVB points to removal of the statement that the appointment of Edmondson to write a Red Wolf series for Marvel generated controversy. Npgordon25, who made that edit, stated in their edit summary, "Deleted reference from tabloid journalism". I'm not aware that the Outhousers or Comics Beat is considered "tabloid journalism". Comics Beat, as mentioned above, is as far as I know, generally considered reliable for comics industry news, as Heidi MacDonald was a contributor to The Comics Buyer's Guide. However, like with the allegations of harassment above, we must be cautious on what the article reports, if anything. Looking over those two cited articles, it appears that the controversy stemmed from those same allegations, and in the case of the Outhousers article, the material seems to be presented in the form of embedded images that no longer work, at least on my browser. (Are they deleted tweets?) From what I can gather from that and the Comics Beat article, which is the same one cited above, it's the same material, so if material on the allegation of sexual harassment is restored in the article, then this should be merged into that, and not included as a separate vague mention of "controversy" without explanation.

In conclusion -- a provisional one -- I see no evidence that passage detailing Edmondson's arrest for credit card or his living in Utah were "poorly sourced", or consistute "personal attacks", and I see no justification for removing information on Edmondson's home town, alma mater, or where he lives -- barring explanation from those editors who have removed that material. However, though further discussion is needed regarding the accusation of sexual harassment. Your thoughts will be appreciated. Nightscream (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The Cooke story (and its confrmation by Joe Keatinge) were also referenced in a Mary Sue article. The deleted images from the Outhousers article are available in the archived version. (DETVB (talk) 18:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC))

@DETVB: @GrantGoodMensch:, @Npgordon25:, @Jonesmaree: Okay, since there's been no response by any of the three editors who removed the above material in the almost two weeks since I last posted here, and since the material in question undoubtedly appears to be both relevant and well-sourced (with DETVB supplying an additional source just above), and the rationales that have been offered for this information's removal has either been highly dubious or even non-existent, I have restored the material. Any further disagreements over this should be brought to this discussion here. Please do not engage in edit warring. Doing so can result in being blocked from editing by administrators. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I have alerted other editors on the Wikiproject Comics talk page about the most recent developments here. I had previously invited them to the discussion a couple of weeks ago, though I think I may have neglected to mention that fact above.

@BOZ:, @Emperor:, @Jc37::

I began a discussion here, to which I pinged the three accounts of the editors who kept blanking the material in question. The only participant other than myself was the editor who alerted me to that activity. After waiting two weeks, I restored the material in question.

Now one of the accounts, GrantGoodMensch, has returned to blanking it, claiming in their edit summaries that the material in question is "poorly sourced, irrelevant vandalism drawn from tabloid blogs", and does so repeatedly, ignoring the talk page discussion, my warnings on his/her talk page, that this this not how Wikipedia defines vandalism, and that the Augusta Chronicle, Comics Beat, et al. are not "tabloids".

@Argento Surfer:, in answer to your question on the Wikiproject page, it was not a mere "allegation". I don't know if he was convicted, but he was charged with the crime in question, and I'm not aware that conviction is the standard by which we exclude such material on Wikipedia. Nightscream (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

If he's notable for being a writer, I'm not sure a miscellaneous instance of theft merits inclusion in his article. Outside of sources saying it happened, is it really relevant to his biography? I'm not arguing that it's not, but it is worth considering since it's being challenged.

As far as I can tell regarding the sexual harassment, it was just an allegation. If that's going to be included, I think it needs to be put in context (ie: Edmonson's career was harmed by allegations...), not just dumped in a controversy section with a note that he ignored a request for a comment from one site covering the allegations. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

"Notable for being a writer" Biographical articles typically include lawsuits, arrests, and other legal troubles faced by subjects who are notable for something else, and coverage in sources are precisely the criterion by which inclusion is predicated, so I'm not sure what you mean by "outside of sources." Do you disagree? Yes, content should be contextualized and integrated as much as possible, as as it is with any other article. But keep in mind reporting on the effects of the allegations, if any, is limited by what sources say. The similar section in the Jose Whedon, article for example, doesn't go into that "context", perhaps because what effect the accusations made against him are going to have on his career may be unclear, at least at present.

"Just an allegation" When you say "just an allegation"...as opposed to what? Again, are you implying that a criminal conviction is the standard for inclusion? Should the accusations leveled at Joss Whedon, Kevin Spacey, and Bryan Singer be removed from those articles? what is your opinion on that content?

"He ignored a request for a comment from one site" I don't understand what you mean by this. Can you clarify? What "one site"? What request?

What is your stances on the blanking of the content by the editors in question? Nightscream (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Taking your last point first, I'm specifically looking at this version. The last line is When reached for comment by the comic book website The Mary Sue, Edmondson did not respond. I don't see a point in its inclusion, outside of it being a subtle way to point out that Edmondson hasn't issued an apology, or denied it, or whatever. I read it with negative connotation, but maybe I'm missing something.

I don't have a lot of experience with BLPs, but I have learned that they require more caution than other article types. When I say the sexual harassment claims are allegations, I mean a small number of women have accused him of sexual harassment, and one male colleague saying he was aware of how one of the women felt at the time. Edmondson has not publicly confirmed them or denied them, so far as I can tell. I don't intended to minimize the experience of those women, but it's possible that Edmondson is just very bad at hitting on women. There are legal definitions for sexual harassment (the story recounted at Graphic Policy doesn't reach either), but the real distinction between flirting and harassment comes down to how much the recipient welcomes the attention.

The differences between Edmondson and Spacey are obvious: Spacey was accused of an actual crime since his victim was a minor, he was fired from work over it, and he was formally investigated in at least two countries. Similarly for Whedon, who's behavior was directed at people he had direct power over even if they weren't technically his employees. He also lost work due to the internal investigation. Singer was also accused an actual crime because his victims were underage, and he lost award nominations because of it. Compare all them to Edmondson - who was accused of making creepy advances toward an adult woman who didn't want them but didn't tell him to stop, wasn't obligated to submit, and suffered no retaliation afterward. When the allegations arose with him announced as the writer of Red Wolf, he was not taken off the project and I don't see any claims that these allegations have stopped him from getting future work (although they may have - I'd hesitate to hire him).

At the moment, I think the article would be best served by combining the Early life, Personal life, and credit card theft into one section. I'm not sure the sexual harassment paragraph merits inclusion. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I missed that "reached for comment" bit, and I agree it shouldn't be included either way.

You make some good observations about the distinctions as to why the three other examples are more egregious examples, but that doesn't mean that the material should not be included. The point has received significant coverage, and that tends to be the standard we observe.

Bottom line: What do you think should be done about GrantGoodMensch continuing to remove all of the material, including the credit card theft info?

For the record, I just messaged DETVB on his tp that I don't think he should continue reverting mduring this discussion.

I will attempt to again contact admins regarding this matter. Nightscream (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

GGM is certainly going about things the wrong way, and any valid point he has is being obscured by bad behavior. The harassment material may merit inclusion, but I don't think it's clear cut and my experience with BLP material isn't deep enough to have a strong opinion on it. Maybe an RFC is the way to go? Argento Surfer (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Addendum regarding individuals accused of sexual misconduct. Dustin Hoffman has also been accused of sexual misconduct. What he was accused of woudl be considered a crime, though he wasn't charged or investigated (I'm not sure if that was the stanard you were applying), nor am I aware that he has lost work over it. The section in his article that describes those allegations certainly doesn't indicate those things. Nightscream (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here regarding this matter. I do not have much time available, but as a principle, I think that Wikipedia has a strong responsibility to only use extremely reliable sources and verified proven information, if the allegations in question risk to destroy somebody's life and public reputation. I am aware of that much of Wikipedia has devolved into a smear-campaign against anybody that certain heavily committed editors politically disapprove of, but nevertheless that is my moral stance regarding the issue. David A (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@David A: And what is your assessment of the sources cited for the material being discussed here? Do feel the Augusta Chronicle is not reliable? Or Heidi MacDonald's reporting for The Beat? Nightscream (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

By comic book journalism standards they are probably fairly reliable. They are not gossip and smear sites like Bleeding Cool for example, but it does not seem like there is remotely any verified evidence, legal conclusions, or similar available regarding these issues, and as I mentioned above, I think that Wikipedia should be extra careful when it risks to cause significant real world harm to regular people. David A (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

(Regarding Edmondson's associated in the credit card matter)

Is that the same guy? Its not an uncommon name, and the CB source only links to the old AC article (and seems to have been inspired by this article) Juno (talk) 07:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@David A: So should that material remain in the article, or not, in your opinion? Nightscream (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I personally think that the information should probably be removed unless it is reliably verified. David A (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nightscream: I am very uneasy with offhandedly destroying somebody's life based on what is essentially unreliable rumor-mongering. David A (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@David A: None of the information in question is derived from "rumors", or "unreliable" sources. Neither the Augusta Chronicle nor The Beat are, as far as I know, considered to be unreliable sources, nor are the reports they published based on "rumors". Edmondson's arrest was reported by a reporte for the Chronicle, and the sexual harassment matter is based on testimonials by those who say Edmondson committed that act against them. Nightscream (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nightscream: Then the former can probably be included, but the latter is still an unproven accusation in terms of actual evidence that can hold muster in a court of law. Anybody can accuse anybody of anything, and even drag potential co-conspirators into it. That does not remotely automatically make the accusation a fact worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. As I mentioned I am extremely morally uneasy with how Wikipedia has turned into an offhanded judge, jury, and executioner life-destroying slander machine. We should have strict standards for evidence in relation to the damage wrought upon potentially innocent people. David A (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• I would say that the sexual harassment allegations and controversy over his work should remain, because they're reasonably well-sourced and are connected (by the sources) to his main source of notability. The controversy over his work should be attributed, though (eg. [source] criticized him for [reason]) since it is opinion / reception. Also, given that this page has been edited by multiple WP:SPA accounts who have essentially only edited articles related to Edmondson and have made very similar edits, it might be worth checking at WP:SPI or raising the possibility of a WP:COI. The sight of multiple WP:SPA accounts removing the same material from the same article raises concern, at the very least. --Aquillion (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I attributed that multiple SPAs to unintentional meatpuppetry, probably inspired by twitter or a newsletter or something. I don't see any cause to suspect deception, as they're not all participating in this discussion or appealing to their numbers. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Personal life, legal troubles, harassment allegations, and controversy

There has been a protracted dispute over whether to include or exclude the following things on this article:

1. Should the article mention the arrest for credit card fraud, most recently summarized in the first paragraph here?

2. Should the article mention the allegations of sexual harassment, most recently summarized in the second paragraph here?

3. Should the article mention the controversy over his work, most recently summarized here?

Please indicate each separately (unless you have the same opinion on all three or something), with any details for how you'd prefer to cover them relative to the current / most recent versions. --Aquillion (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Poll

• 1. No, 2. Yes, 3. Yes, but expand and attribute. The credit card fraud has relatively weak sourcing and only a tangential connection to his notability, which means it is probably undue. The sourcing on the sexual assault allegations, on the other hand, is more in-depth and directly connects it to his career, so it ought to be covered. And the controversy stirred by him and his work is part of his notability, which means it deserves more focus, but it ought to be attributed, elaborated on, and be part of a broader summary of its reception (not in a controversy section; in some sort of reception section or the like.) EDIT: Since some people have argued that WP:BLPCRIME applies, I will point out that he is unquestionably a WP:PUBLICFIGURE - he has held repeated, extensive interviews with high-profile outlets ([1][2][3]) and book signings ([4][5], two of the main criteria on WP:LOWKEY. This is a common misunderstanding about BLPCRIME. The standard for public figures is different, and states that If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. We have multiple reliable sources covering it in this case. --Aquillion (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
• No to all - 1. As brought up in the first section on this page from 2015, there's no confirmation the credit card thief and this writer are one and the same person. The source connecting them was published September 9, 2015. The information was added to this article September 8, 2015. I'd like to see a source prior to that to eliminate the possibility of citogenesis. 2. The Beat source goes to great lengths to say this is a rumor, and that the described behavior amounts to being "an asshole," and that one person’s asshole is sometimes another person’s friend. The Bleeding Cool article is in the same vein, and the Beat quotes Rich Johnston, head of Bleeding Cool, as saying he investigated the allegations and found nothing credible to report. The Graphic Policy article is just a regurgitation of tweets from one person with a little context and no analysis or examination. IMO, that amounts to a self-published source. The inclusion of the Mary Sue source is a joke. "He didn't respond to a request for comment." 3. No, as it was a tempest in a teapot with no impact on anything. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
• No to all - BLPCRIME, especially in what seems just rumor or vague innuendo from the thin cite (which proclaims muckraking in its banner) proclaiming the lack of evidence or specifics. Also issues of WEIGHT and sourcing, and OFFTOPIC of being a BLP. # 1 is worst, weak cite about almost 20 years ago and not convicted (or even charged?). #2 is 7 years ago and has more tweets about (naturally), but it too has no further consequence - it seems just vague tweets with no charges or specifics and no real effect to his life. I particularly think out of line is the mention of his not having an interview with hostile venue Mary Sue two years later as if that is biographically important or at all incriminating. And #3 seems a repeat of #2 with additional offtopic mention that some of the unhappiness was against Marvel due to a Native American character being illustrated by NA artist but that this writer was not NA. Not about Nathan. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
• 1: No. The sources do not sufficiently support the claim, and even if true, does not really impact his notability in any way. Basically, I agree with Aquillion on this one. 2: Yes. Some of the sources provided are sketchy, but there does seem to be a couple valid sources, and this was an event that did in fact impact his reputation, and seems relevant to the extremely notable #MeToo movement. 3: Yes. But the nature of the controversy should be spell out as per the sources, in that he was criticized for being a non-minority writer working on a minority-based comic. I don't know that it needs to be expanded much, but at least a brief mention would be due. Fieari (talk) 06:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
• No to all 3 for 1 its still not evident that those are the same people. For 2, its vague and citing a single twitter account with in first-person. That isn't enough for BLP. For 3 its more second-hand tweets. Juno (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• 1: No. At least not without better sources, it was 16 years ago he was a 19 year old kid and the source does say that he was charged but we don't know what the outcome of charges are. Was he convicted? Rumors and accusations of misconduct are not what Wikipedia is about WP:RUMOR. Was he convicted of anything? Tepkunset (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• No to all. For the same reasons as Argento Surfer. David A (talk) 11:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Yes to all. The criterion for inclusion is coverage in reliable sources, and yes, the sources are easily reliable, and they do indeed make clear that the person covered is the subject of this article. The goalposts being floated about it -- like not knowing the outcome of his arrest -- seem like an arbitrary and dangerous precedent to set.

I also am disturbed at how no one aside from myself seems to want to address the SPAs' edit-warring, violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA by accusing anyone who disagrees with them of being "vandals", etc., and their unilateral position that they will revert the article to their liking without discussion. Such behavior, if not addressed, only further emboldens others to engage in the same conduct, and if the SPA is the article subject, or someone close to them, it would not bode well from a WP:COI viewpoint. Nightscream (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The consensus above seems to be that the likely slanderous information can now be removed from the article. David A (talk) 09:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

None of the information has been indicated to be slanderous, except by those one-off newbie editors who tried removing it without discussion. Nightscream (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I resent that. Slander is spoken. In print, it's libel. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I continue to be extremely uneasy with offhandedly likely destroying somebody's life based on unproven unreliable gossip, especially given that the consensus above leans against it. David A (talk) 04:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

None of the information constitutes "gossip". They were published in reliable sources in which the victims recounted the incidednts in question. That is not what gossip is. Nightscream (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

If it is just claims without anything remotely approaching evidence backing them up, published in what appear to be very unreliable publications, that is almost a textbook definition of gossip.

Why have these unproven likely smear-mongering claims not been removed yet? The consensus above seems to be against keeping them. David A (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

"If it is just claims without anything remotely approaching evidence backing them up, published in what appear to be very unreliable publications...."

They haven't been. The publications in question are reliable.

As for "evidence", precisely what evidence does the act of sexual harassment tend to leave behind? Nightscream (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Bleeding Cool is self-admittedly a gossip site, and according to the above posts even they admitted that no credible claims had been brought forth, whereas The Mary Sue is mostly a politically very slanted opinion site as far as I am aware. Neither of them should remotely be considered reliable sources, and given Wikipedia's transformation into a onesided political propaganda machine, rather than retaining its neutrality and consideration of not risking to incite personal harm and/or destroyed livelihoods, it censors some far less suspicious sources than these mainly due to wrongthink.

Also, if it is just a single person claiming that somebody, that they may simply dislike and feel malicious intent towards for personal or political reasons, is, for example, a cannibalistic serial-killer, why should that be taken as automatic gospel? That is not how any form of justice system in any civilised free society should work. That is a system of guilty until proven innocent rather than innocent until proven guilty. I continue to very strongly ethically oppose this principle. David A (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Never mind. I just checked through the article, and it seems like the information has already been removed. David A (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended Discussion

The discussion below was initially the body of the RFC; I bumped it down to discussion when rewriting it. --Aquillion (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Editor DETVB asked me to address the fact that User:GrantGoodMensch, User:Npgordon25, and User:Jonesmaree have been blanking content from this article on Edmondson's personal life, legal troubles, and harassment allegations, all of which are supported by reliable sources. These editors have not responded to my numerous messages here or on their talk pages, but have continued to blank this content unilaterally, against at least two other editors, and during the discussion that began above, offering rationales that: 1. The sources in question are blogs 2. The sources are tabloids 3. The material is a "hit piece" by writer Ales Kot, and 4. The material in question constitutes "vandalism". I examined each of these claims in detail above, and responded to them above. My attempts to invite others here on the WikiProject Comics talk page, where I tried pinging three admins, have also gone mostly unanswered. One editor, Argento Surfer, did respond to offer his views above. Nightscream (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The issue at hand is how much, if any, of the following paragraph should be included in this BLP article based on the sources provided. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

In 2015, shortly after the announcement that Edmondson would be writing a Red Wolf series for Marvel, a controversy arose with several sexual harassment claims levelled against him by members of the comic book industry. Two years later, writer and editor Stephanie Cooke and author Elizabeth Amber Love gave more detailed accounts of their interactions with Edmondson; Cooke's story was subsequently corroborated by writer Joe Keatinge. When reached for comment by the comic book website The Mary Sue, Edmondson did not respond.

That is not the only issue. There is also the issue of his arrest for credit card theft, which is also supported by valid sources:

In 2005, Edmondson, working as a bartender at an Augusta nightclub, was arrested and charged with using a customer's credit card left at his place of work. According to the police, Edmondson, along with a man who worked as a DJ at the same nightclub, went on a "one-day shopping spree", with Edmondson additionally using the card to cover up for $500 taken from the cash register sometime earlier.

just as a comment, the material on the Leadership Institute is supported only by what the subject himself says in two early interviews, I don't see any evidence either about working in international relations before becoming a writer. If there were, it would be relevant for his career, because of the genre of his fiction. :The theft charges are irrelevant to his career (tho they do provide evidence he worked as a bartender), and tho he's notable, he's not notable enough to include these if he was never convicted, which I do not see one way or the other. )

he harassment charges are a problem. As pointed out, they're boorish behavior, not illegal behavior. But they're not an isolated event--from the sources, he seems to have a reputation for it. What I do not know, is how reliable the sources are considered in the industry. DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

References

• Comment When writing an RfC, the statement introducing it should be neutral. This one is anything but. I would suggest withdrawing this one, and starting a new RfC with a clear, neutral statement of what content is suggested, what sources are proposed to support it, and what arguments have been offered for and against, without characterizing any such as anything like "flatly false". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Things that are true as a question of fact are neutral. The claims in question were indeed flatly false. Nightscream (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• comment someone above mentioned the Cooke tweets not being archived besides the first one; the rest were archived here.DrBat (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

As an uninterested party responding to the RfC, I do not see the RfC statement as being neutral. I think it needs to be reworded, with a clear and simply stated question to be answered, removing any judgement words such as "flatly false" even if it is a fact. Arguments for/against the proposed question should not be included in the question itself, but can be appended here on the talk page after the question is proposed. I would support closing and restarting the RfC towards this end. Fieari (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

And once again, the admins turn a blind eye to the activities of disruptive editors, while making those acting in good faith to address such disruption jump through flaming hoops.

Fine. I removed mention of the truth or falsity of the assertions in question. Restarting the RfC would be overkill, I think. Can we please address the editor/editors blanking content persistently, refusing to discuss or respond to messages, calling things "blogs", "vandalism", etc. are really aren't, etc.?

And while we're at it, can we keep our messages in chronological order? Sheesh. Nightscream (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

This still isn't great. Since the RFC has attracted little attention and nobody has seriously weighed in, I am going to rewrite it entirely (feel free to revert if you object, but it's best to move quickly so we don't have to restart it), and bump this down to a discussion section since it's basically just discussion. The most important thing is that it should focus on changes we propose making to the article, not on the behavior of editors. --Aquillion (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, since I rewrote the RFC, pinging everyone who has said anything in it prior to that: @Nightscream:, @Argento Surfer:, @DGG:, @DrBat:, @Fieari:, @Seraphimblade: --Aquillion (talk) 01:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• I read through the ComicsBeat article ([6]), which, for all its length, concludes with the author stating that she had checked into the rumors, and could not find a single person willing to corroborate them. She then stated that she was engaged in a largely hypothetical "If this were true..." type exercise, and was not willing to actually assert it, just to report on what had essentially been said on Twitter. That is unequivocally not an appropriate source to use for a highly controversial allegation in a BLP, and that must be removed unless better, more definitive reference material is available. "Graphic Policy" is a blog (it even calls its founder the "Blogger in Chief"), so again, not appropriate for controversial allegations in a BLP. While The Mary Sue has been found to be reliable in some cases, it, again, just reports that tweets were made, and does not indicate that any attempt was made to fact-check or corroborate them. The Outhouse has gone defunct, but appears to be primarily a satire/lampoon site, not a serious newsgathering organization ([7]). Regardless, its article leads off with ...there has been no proof presented anywhere in any of this to the public. So, essentially, that is a lot of "Somebody said something on Twitter". That is categorically not acceptable for a BLP. The Augusta Chronicle is certainly a reliable source, and does confirm the arrest and charges for fraud, but I cannot find anything confirming the disposition of that case. Absent knowing that he was convicted for it, and that having some weight regarding him, that is a WP:BLPCRIME violation. So, that stuff has absolutely got to go; it is a gross violation of BLP. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

He is a public figure (ie. he's participated in extensive book signings and interviews, two of the main criteria for authors under WP:LOWKEY.), so the part of WP:BLPCRIME that would encourage us to strongly consider removal doesn't apply; the only part that applies is that we cannot describe him as guilty in the article text, which we certainly do not do. Instead, the standard that applies here is at WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which states that If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. --Aquillion (talk) 04:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, we've then got the issue that there's no confirmation that this is even the same Nathan Edmondson. Unless there's some other source to explicitly confirm that? Plenty of people share the same name; there's hundreds of people with my name in the US alone. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

How much, or what type of "confirmation" would you require? The sources that document the testimonials of those accusing him of sexual harassment make it clear they're talking about the comics creator. Nightscream (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Who Is Jake Ellis? into Nathan Edmondson

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into Nathan Edmonson. -- Whiteguru (talk) 06:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

---

no material except plot DGG ( talk ) 10:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.