Talk:Cody Wilson

regarding the vice article, wilson's sexual assault case, autobiographical editing
this article: https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjvwqx/death-athletic-documentary-jessica-solce-cody-wilson has been used in previous edits as evidence that he's either completed his probation or that the case against him has been 'dismissed'.

the article appears to be primarily an interview with one of wilson's associates about a documentary they created together. however, the information contradicts earlier reporting about his sentencing (he was sentenced to 7 years probation in 2019; the article was published in 2023 and claims the probation was completed in 2022). furthermore, cases aren't dismissed post facto and he has already been tried, convicted, and sentenced. unless by "dismissed" we're talking about his probation period being reduced early, but that would be a very unusual way to phrase it. although i cannot find any information outside of this article to corroborate that, and it doesn't provide any additional context. have there been newer developments? are there any other sources for this?

for the record, this is the relevant quote, which is very brief and seemingly contradicts itself:

"Later that year (2018), Wilson pleaded guilty to charges of sexual assault against a minor. He’d met a 16-year-old girl off a sugar daddy dating site and paid her for sex (he says she claimed to be of legal age), and was sentenced to seven years probation and required to register as a sex offender during this period. In November 2022, Wilson completed his probation, and his case was dismissed."

one other issue with the vice article is that the statement was made immediately after discussion of another case he was involved in. it appears to be referring to his probation, but there isn't actually much clarity. regardless, even if his probation were terminated early, his charges (which he plead guilty to and was sentenced for) weren't wiped from public record, which is what the statement by itself would imply (especially with how the quote was inserted into the wiki article)

—

i've noticed that there have been periodic edits to this article wiping other aspects of the case without explanation, such as police statements or his deportation. curiously, some of these edits have been made by a very old account, which, in 2008, had "The alter-alter-ego of rogue scholar and general misanthropist, C. Rutledge Wilson" in the bio section:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kamenev&oldid=251221024

checking page statistics and wow, "C. Ruthledge Wilson" has evidently written the bulk of this article:

https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Cody_Wilson

https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Kamenev/0/Cody%20Wilson

i believe there are rules in place about that sort of conflict-of-interest editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcollins94 (talk • contribs)

Regarding the facts at hand in the case of Cody Wilson, sex offender, and the definition thereof
I am astounded that this needs to be said, but recent reversions on this article have made it plainly clear that some readers may be confused regarding not just the law of the land, but the fundamental laws of fact which define and govern our collective experience of the construct of reality.

One does not cease to be a sex offender after some arbitrary amount of time has passed, full stop. The present status of one’s prosecution agreement or rehabilitation effort - whether psychologically, legally, interpersonally, publicly or privately, &c. - does not magically erase the event of the commission of a crime from this or any other timeline.

Cody Wilson committed a sex crime by transacting with a minor individual for the purpose of engaging in sexual intercourse with a legal child. I am baffled by the reverts performed by editor Iljhgtn, who not only contends that facts have an expiration date, so long as a legal representative of the state adjudicates a sufficient waiting period after which the proverbial toothpaste can be metaphysically returned to its metaphorical tube; but furthermore has taken to gaslighting under threat of edit war while aggressively reverting the constructive contributions of Gcollins94. I am mystified by the behavior on display in their comments, though perhaps it is my mistake to naively presume that someone with so high an edit count would know better, and I wholly reject the actions of this editor and regard the premise of their argument as myopic, misguided, and fundamentally misinformed.

In word and in deed, as it is so for the honorable United States Marine or the alcoholic in their noble journey of recovery, the badge of sex offender is borne by the actor for the remainder of this life and for all the life beyond, and with it all the connotations and implications derived thereof. There is no dispute that there may be certain legal restrictions and requirements imposed upon Wilson by the state as due in the course of the carriage of justice, and such impositions may well have finite terms of application upon his legal rights and duties - the legal term of art for Mr. Wilson’s particular disposition is “probation.” When it comes such a time that he has met the agreed upon terms to the satisfaction of the court, possibly in addition to meeting other requirements deemed legally necessary, it may very well be possible to petition the court to expunge his record. Regardless of the ultimate outcome, it is not possible in any sense of reality and fact to un-f**k that child. Pardon I beseech thee, dear reader, but what’s done is done.

That there be no question in the mind of any reader as to the facts at hand, let me be pellucidly clear: Cody Wilson was a sex offender then, Cody Wilson is a sex offender now, Cody Wilson will be a sex offender forever. Any assertion to the contrary is irrational, immoral, and indefensible.

I would also like to use this space to clarify that I did not intend to thank Iljhgtn for their most recent edit, however to the best of my knowledge there is no undo button for that function. If I am mistaken, I would appreciate clarification and direction, regardless of who it may come from.

Thank you for your kind attention, as Always I am Ever Yr. Humble Editor, 🆃 🆁  🆂  ⑨ⓚ™ 18:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * A lot of emotion there, but not a whole lot of actual WP policy. Please also keep your comments purely about the subject matter at hand, and not about anything that could be construed, or misconstrued, as a personal attack on another editor. Keep in mind also the advice that it might be time to take the dog for a walk. Considering that we go off of reliable sources on wikipedia, and not what is morally, ethically, or otherwise "right" or "wrong", it is important that we let the information reflect that, and follow policy accordingly. When it comes to WP:DUE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:ONUS, and the cited mention of this BLP's current status as an offender or otherwise, the sources speak to the facts of the most recent status. Historically, we can, should, and do reflect the changes of status over time, and that has not and should not change... until of course we have verifiable WP:Reliable sources that substantiate new information that you are clearly quite heated about it would seem.
 * In regard to your mis-"thank", I acknowledge that you have now "unthanked" me, but as you mentioned, I do not believe there is a way to undo it. Don't worry about it, it means nothing and neither helps nor hurts me in any way whatsoever. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Facts don’t care about your feelings, err, emotions. Cody Wilson committed a sexual offense, therefore Cody Wilson is a sex offender. What good does it serve anyone but Cody Wilson to debate this? 🆃 🆁  🆂  ⑨ⓚ™ 18:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * We do not debate anything of that nature on wikipedia. Wikipedia does not lead, it follows, and so we follow the facts of the case, as reported by reliable sources. We can know something to be true, we can feel it, and really want to "correct" the "facts", but until this is reported by a reputable journalist in a reliable and verifiable source, ideally a secondary source and not a primary source, then our hands are tied. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

A source, perhaps, like the one I provided and which was deleted? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cody_Wilson&oldid=1194393588 🆃 🆁  🆂  ⑨ⓚ™ 18:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * As I said above, we reflect the latest according these reliable sources. Looking at what you added, it was a Texas Tribune piece from 2019. The latest as reflected by four such sources corroborates, Upon completion of his probation in 2022, Wilson's charges and case were dismissed. The historical record as previously would have been factually supported is documented in the same section above as, On December 28, 2018, Wilson was indicted for sexual assault after a sexual encounter with a minor he met on SugarDaddyMeet.com, a website that matches younger, adult women with older men. He was accused of committing a second-degree felony by paying a 16-year-old girl $500 for sex in a hotel room in Austin, Texas in August 2018. This information is also all well sourced, and reflects the facts as reported in chronological sequence. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Expunging his record does not change the fact that he had sex with a child. It is the right of the court to disregard this fact, but it is still a fact. It didn’t un-happen because a court said so. 🆃 🆁  🆂  ⑨ⓚ™ 19:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)