Talk:Cameron Stewart

Photograph
In the process of procuring copyright/license permission for the file CSFanExpo.jpg or another similar more recent photo for the article. Would kindly ask user Sherurcij to stop re-editing the article to include the old photo.Seeamus (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Once you have the new photo, we can delete the old one...but meanwhile, we should keep it up unless you are Cameron Stewart, in which case I don't mind leaving it off. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 20:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you refrain from removing the old photograph in favour of your own prefered one which keeps getting deleted (as that puts the article back a step). If you need help with image licensing then ask we can see what we can do to help. (Emperor (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC))

Uncited material in need of citations
I am moving the following material here until it can be properly supported with reliable, secondary citations, per WP:V, WP:CS, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS], WP:BLP, WP:NOR, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Nightscream (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

He created art for an animated sequence at the end of the music video for Canadian pop singer Skye Sweetnam's 2007 song "Human".

He is a co-founder with Kagan McLeod, Ben Shannon, Steven Murray, and Chip Zdarsky, of the studio Royal Academy of Illustration and Design. He is also a co-founder of the Transmission-X webcomics collective.

The Allegations section
I'm an American writer who has taken an interest in the accusations leveled at Cameron Stewart. We don't like to admit it, but Wikipedia is the first place that many of us look. In addition to the articles themselves, Wikipedia provides two great resources for researchers: First, the sources for background information are explicitly provided so readers can follow up upon them. Second, the history of the articles as they have evolved over time are preserved, allowing us to determine who has written what and when. I have followed up on both of these resources, and this is what I have found:

1) The allegations were initially added based not upon news reports, but upon twitter posts by his accusers, Aviva Maï and Kate Leth, which predated coverage in the press: – the first of these doesn't even provide a reference

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cameron_Stewart&diff=962828679&oldid=962828622 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cameron_Stewart&diff=962886720&oldid=962830400

It seems highly unusual that Wikipedia content would be based upon the posts of social media users, and suggests that the person who added this is connected to the accuser(s) in some way.

2) One of the IPs then edited the biographies of one of his accusers, Kate Leth to add the Cameron Stewart accusation and to change all the pronouns to third person plurals as well as adding "Category:Transgender and transsexual artists" – how would the IP know that this is what Leth wanted?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kate_Leth&type=revision&diff=962916843&oldid=960777676 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/98.19.225.184&offset=&limit=500&target=98.19.225.184

This biography is referenced overwhelmingly to twitter and other social media posts, which is very unusual for Wikipedia and – I think – generally disallowed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kate_Leth&oldid=1016922298 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kate_Leth&action=history

If it were my call, I would say that the article Kate Leth should probably not exist at all.

3) Based upon the preceding two observations, it seems fair to ask if Wikipedia isn't just covering a news story but played a role in propagating it.

4) The Twitter posts

One must admire the attention to detail which went into formatting these references:

While not directly referenced here any more, these are important as they are the core of the story as it was reprinted elsewhere. Few of the press follow ups add anything besides uncritically repeating Aviva Maï's tweet alongside some quotes from Kate Leth, who, based upon the totality of evidence presented here, I presume to have been the one who pushed this story onto Wikipedia and into the press. There is no sign that anyone attempted to independently substantiate or verify either Maï's or Leth's claims.

Leth's initial tweet has since been deleted, though it still exists on webarchive:

https://twitter.com/kateleth/status/1272738680512233472 https://web.archive.org/web/20200616035316/https://twitter.com/kateleth/status/1272738680512233472

This was soon amended to clarify that she was 20 or 21, not 19 as first claimed, but I cannot find the tweet which I presume was also deleted (it is quoted here):

https://i0.wp.com/www.comicsbeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Screen-Shot-2020-06-16-at-8.52.50-AM.png?ssl=1 https://twitter.com/TanyaRi37670010/status/1273347482303500288

5) The Accusations text

The first three sentences of the Accusations paragraph read as follows:

"In June 2020, Stewart was accused by multiple women and non-binary people of predatory sexual behavior when they were fans or aspiring artists in their teens and early twenties, and he was in his thirties. A common complaint was that he used his status as a professional artist to foster their trust, as a pretext for sexual advances, which they likened to grooming. Those making the accusations included Kate Leth and Natasha Negovanlis.[11][12][13][14][15]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cameron_Stewart&oldid=1016168194#Allegations_of_sexual_misconduct

Based upon the sources as referenced, as well as others that I've read, these three sentences contain at least four rather consequential inaccuracies:

5.1) None of the referenced sources say anything about "non-binary people" – this was added by an IP with many edits to animation-related articles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cameron_Stewart&diff=967758920&oldid=967656243

Immediately thereafter, the same IP added "Category:Genderqueer artists" to Kate Leth:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kate_Leth&diff=prev&oldid=967759329

5.2) Only one person likened anything to "grooming", and that was Aviva Maï on twitter. Yet here it is presented as a "common complaint." The word "grooming" is linked to Wikipedia's article Child abuse:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cameron_Stewart&diff=962939125&oldid=962938050

Like the text itself, this link, added by the same IP which helped to build Kate Leth, suggests a degree of malice above and beyond the mere desire to report the facts.

5.3) Kate Leth accused him specifically of chatting up young – not minors – women, not "non-binary people.". Leth states that, when she was 19, then amended to 20 or 21, Stewart drew her a picture of Death on hotel stationary, and that later she "cockblocked" him (her words) when he hit on "college girls" at parties:

http://www.multiversitycomics.com/news/cameron-stewart-allegations/

I cannot see how this adds up to "child grooming," or really to any form of abuse at all. If Leth's claims are to be considered relevant here – and I'm not sure if they should be – they should be reflected for what they are: Stewart liked younger women and Leth went out of her way to "cockblock" him.

5.4) Natasha Negovanlis did not allege anything in particular, but stated "I have similar stories about him that I don’t feel comfortable sharing publicly at this time":

https://twitter.com/natvanlis/status/1272741642756403207

Thus, we cannot know what she does or doesn't mean to corroborate. This did not stop the IP from adding to her biography the following text: "In June 2020, Negovanlis has accused comic book writer/artist Cameron Stewart of sexually harassing her after several other women have come forward":

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natasha_Negovanlis&diff=prev&oldid=962942072

It is perhaps telling that the IP presented her name aside and before that of the much better-known Negovanlis.

5.5) In sum, the claim put forth here that "Stewart was accused by multiple women and non-binary people of predatory sexual behavior when they were fans or aspiring artists in their teens and early twenties" is not supported by the sources at hand. This section, assuming that it should exist at all, needs to be rewritten.

I am curious to see if and how Wikipedia will react to and act upon this post of mine.2601:153:C003:6880:69C8:BF54:C453:74B7 (talk) 11:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Allegations of sexual misconduct
Above is the last stable version of the section before the edit war started. The only change I would suggest is making sure the citations used in the second paragraph are used in the first paragraph. In terms of sources:


 * Polygon - considered a reliable source by the video games project (WikiProject Video games/Sources)
 * Bleeding Cool - considered a reliable source by both the video games project & the comics project (WikiProject Comics/References)
 * Comics Beat - considered a reliable source by the comics project (WikiProject Comics/References)
 * Multiversity Comics - considered a reliable source by the comics project (WikiProject Comics/References)
 * The Daily Beast - no consensuses on reliability; in general, editors should decide on a case by case basis with caution (WP:DAILYBEAST)
 * CBR - caution in post-2016 articles per video games project (WikiProject Video games/Sources)

So we have 4 industry outlets which are considered reliable. The Daily Beast source is not the sole source for the sentences it cites. The CBR source is not used as a source for the news on the allegations but is the only source for the fact that Stewart was dropped from a project which is relevant (ie. a thing occurred and whether or not the allegations are true, Stewart as a comic book creator was dropped from comics projects which is relevant for understanding his career). Given the sources (at least 4 reliable industry outlets) and the impact on Stewart's career, I believe this meets the conditions outlined at WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * But these are all based on deleted Twitter posts. Does not reach Wikipedia’s criteria for reliable resource in the case of biographies of living persons. Rsparkles (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Which ones? The 4 listed at the top are all considered reputable as shown by many talks by other Wikipedians that came to this consensus. Wiiformii (talk) 02:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The point of reliable sources is that we (as Wikipedia editors) trust that these sources have done their due diligence before publishing articles. Even if the allegations were later retracted or deleted, the event still occurred and Stewart lost work projects due to the event (ie. so it is relevant for understanding the ups & downs of his career). As an aside, you violated the three-revert rule and should voluntarily self-revert any reverts you made past that. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The internet doesn't forget. Just because a Twitter post is deleted doesn't mean it never happened. Twitter posts are not the resource in question here, though. Four clearly reliable sources, one source which has no consensus on reliability, and one source which should be used with caution have been provided. To me, that seems more than enough to meet Wikipedia's requirements on verifiability As already mentioned, the section is about allegations. As written, it does not say one way or the other whether the alleged conduct actually happened or not. Adam Black talk &bull; contributions 03:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've done some Googling and there are other potentially reliable sources which could further verify this section of the article:
 * Comic writer-artist Cameron Stewart fired from DC project over allegations of ‘grooming’, Gulf News (listed at News_sources/Asia, although with a faulty link and hasn't been updated since 2022; appears reliable)
 * DC Comics drops Cameron Stewart series amid sexual misconduct accusations, AIPT Comics (unable to find any discussion on this source on Wikipedia, cannot judge reliability)
 * Wave of Sexual Misconduct Accusations Rock Comics Industry, Den of Geek (listed as reliable at WikiProject Horror/Sources)
 * Comic Book Industry Reckons With Abuse Claims: “I Don’t Want This to Happen to Anyone Else”, The Hollywood Reporter (listed as generally reliable at Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources)
 * Batgirl writer Cameron Stewart accused of grooming model Aviva Mai, The West Australian (unable to find any discussion on this source, but appears reliable to me)
 * That's two more reliable sources, two potentially reliable sources, and one source who's reliability I can't judge. It does not appear to me that it would be difficult to fully source this section to the standard required by WP:VERIFY. Adam Black talk &bull; contributions 04:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you. But WP does not allow deleted Twitter posts as reliable sources for biographies of living people because of the high risk of defamatory statements.
 * I promise bruv, not trying to troll. Just highlighting that the content of the article violates Wikipedia’s requirements for citations for biographies of living people. Rsparkles (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 2 other editors have given clear and concise information about the reliability of the sources, where does it say deleted twitter posts aren't? The talk isn't about a deleted twitter link so much as the reputability of the sources talking about the allegations. Wiiformii (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * With all do respect, which editors have given clear and concise informations about the reliability of sources? Please go to the sources yourself. They link to posts that do not exist. Rsparkles (talk) 04:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We're not citing Twitter posts; the origin of the allegations doesn't really matter because we're not citing them directly. We're citing reliable sources which boil down to "allegations occurred" and "things occurred due to these allegations". It's not defamatory at all; Stewart did lose work and the context for that career impact is that people made allegations on Stewart's behavior. We also don't make judgment calls on the quality of the sources these outlets use (ie. Twitter posts & other investigations they may have run) unless the reliability of an outlet or author is being questioned. You haven't given any reasons why the secondary sources above should be be considered unreliable. Sariel Xilo (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Because these comments are about the biography of a living person, these sources are not considered reliable. Wikipedia has strict defamation guidelines. Rsparkles (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please cite discussions where these sources are considered unreliable for BLP. Stewart is a comics creator; the majority of the sources are considered reliable for their work on the comics industry which Stewart is part of. Additionally, The Hollywood Reporter source that Adam Black found is a great source for the impact this had on Stewart's career; it states "DC also jettisoned a digital project from artist Cameron Stewart, known for his work on Catwoman, after model Aviva Artzy tweeted that she had been groomed by Stewart when she was 16 and he was in his 30s." Sariel Xilo (talk) 04:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We are going around in circles. Please see WP:BLPRS, "challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" - this requirement has been met. The sources reporting on the allegations, whether the original social media posts have been removed or not, are generally considered reliable and in-line citations have been provided. Adam Black talk &bull; contributions 04:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The discussion above (with no replies), Talk:Cameron Stewart does link to three Twitter posts (all deleted) and makes reference to others. That isn't really relevant to this discussion, though, as we are talking about the article in its current form. I haven't read the thread as it's very lengthy but perhaps that does need to be removed if there is defamatory content. Adam Black talk &bull; contributions 04:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * All the links refer back to archive.org, not the originally posted articles. The original sources have removed the content. There is a high risk of defamation.
 * Regardless, the sources and the content violate Wikipedia’s requirements for commentary on a biography of a living person. Rsparkles (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Instead of repeating the allegation that "the content violate Wikipedia's requirements" despite the repeated assertations to the contrary, could you tell us exactly which policy or guideline you think is being violated. Multiple editors have now explained why this content is permissible per Wikipedia policy. I've tried to be helpful here, as others have, but I'm inclined to disengage. Adam Black talk &bull; contributions 04:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

semi page protection was applied to this article by Dennis Brown at Adam Black talk &bull; contributions 04:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposed phrasing

 * Option A - original phrasing from April 2024 with additional sources as discussed above
 * Option B - adjusted phrasing:
 * In June 2020, Stewart was accused by multiple people of predatory sexual behavior. At the time the events happened, the accusers were much younger fans, friends or aspiring artists in their teens and early twenties, and Stewart was in his mid to late thirties. The accusers said that he used his status as a professional artist to get them to trust him, while all along this was a pretext for his real intent of making sexual advances, or grooming.    Polygon reported that "according to some corroborating voices [...] Stewart's reputation for this behavior was widely known in Toronto's close-knit comics community".
 * In response to this, DC dropped Stewart from an unannounced project he was working on. W. Maxwell Prince and Martin Morazzo, creators of the Image Comics series Ice Cream Man, canceled Stewart's variant cover to the next issue of the series.


 * Option C - 21:59, 7 May 2024 version:
 * In June 2020, Stewart was accused by multiple people of predatory behavior occurring in the early 2000s. At the time the events happened, the accusers were much younger fans, friends or aspiring artists in their early twenties, and Stewart was in his mid thirties.
 * The accusers said that he used his status as a professional artist to get them to trust him, while all along this was a pretext for his real intent of making sexual advances.

I've suggested several phrasing options above for the section in question. My preference is Option B which is a slight edit of the original section; it condenses the allegations into the first paragraph and moves the career impact into its own paragraph. It also removes the links to two of the accusers and instead has a quote from a secondary source. The sources are also updated & rearranged. I think the edit war version (Option C) is an attempt to sanitize the events (removes the career impact, softer language, etc) and should not be used. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As it stands right now, there's a paragraph without sources which is a BLP violation. So I'm going to BOLD implement Option B since I think it is inline with the above discussion. Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

FYI
Hi, Christopher Chiu-Tabet from Multiversity here.

It has come to my attention one of the users here may not be acting in good faith.

I received an email from  12 hours ago stating:

''To Whom it may concern, ''This is a defamation complaint and notice to immediately remove defamatory content from your website found at the following URL: http://www.multiversitycomics.com/news/cameron-stewart-allegations/ ''The “article” references Twitter posts that have been retracted and corrected by the primary sources. The tweets the “article” cites have all been removed due to their defamatory nature. ''It has come to light that the allegations are false and maliciously motivated. ''Your website continues to disseminate the defamatory statements which are false, malicious, and damaging. They have gained widespread exposure through a Wikipedia article citing your website as a source, exacerbating the harm caused by these falsehoods. ''These defamatory statements not only violate your own terms of service regarding acceptable content but also contravene legal statutes pertaining to defamation and libel. The continued hosting of such content reflects poorly on your platform's integrity and could expose you to potential legal liabilities. ''In accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and other relevant laws, I request that you promptly remove the defamatory content from your servers and take necessary actions to prevent its re-upload or dissemination. ''Your company is additionally responsible for removing the defamatory URLs from archive.orgwhich include: https://web.archive.org/web/20240117000000*/http://www.multiversitycomics.com/news/cameron-stewart-allegations/ https://web.archive.org/web/20230218000000*/http://www.multiversitycomics.com/news/cameron-stewart-allegations/feed/ ''Please acknowledge receipt of this notice and inform me of the actions taken to remedy this situation. Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter.

That is all. Alientraveller (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for flagging this! Not sure if a report should be made over at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard or another venue. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC) Ended up posting over there myself. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is certainly concerning. Hopefully whoever this happens to be (I have my fairly obvious suspicions of who it might be) gets bored and drops this when they realise it's going to get them nowhere. Particularly given the Streisand effect this campaign is likely to have. This talk page alone was 9,946 bytes before 8 May and is now 31,793 bytes, more than a threefold increase. I know I'd never heard of Cameron Stewart before Wednesday and now feel like I know far more than I want to. Regardless, I'll be keeping a close eye on this article for questionable edits. Adam Black talk &bull; contributions 03:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)