Talk:Cody Wilson#rfctag

{{archive top}}

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)

furthermore, regardless of one's views as to whether or not he is a "current sex offender", I see no reason why that aspect of his legal history, which is widely known, should not be included in the article.

yet every time it is, no matter how generously it is phrased, it is removed in favor of wording that seems written so as to make it seem like the courts exonorated him. when in reality, he simply completed probation as apart of the terms of his plea deal:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/09/victims-mother-excoriates-cody-wilson-at-sentencing-for-sexual-abuse/

as the judge is quoted in that article,

"I see no reason to not go with the plea deal though there is sufficient evidence to find you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for more than injury to a child."

this would be great context, but alas, given this article's troubled history, i would expect any such contributions to be hawkishly removed.

—

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. Gcollins94 (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:Excellent work, GC94. I truly appreciate what you’ve been able to find here, and you’ve laid out the issues at hand far more cogently and clearly than I ever could. This article has had the stink of whitewashing on it for as long as I’ve been aware of it, but I could never quite connect the dots. The deeper dive you’ve taken into the Vice piece is monumentally significant, as I believe you’re the first to identify a COI between author and subject. You’ve given us much to consider, indeed. – ⓣⓡⓢ⑨ⓚ 15:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::one thing I should clarify that I wasn't fully aware of when I first made this thread is the nature of his plea agreement involving a deferred adjudication, which in the state of Texas does allow a defendant to avoid a criminal conviction provided they follow out their probation period, though it doesn't mean that the case is automatically removed from their public record. there's a seperate process for expungement, but I don't know what the status is for that with this specific case. with the Vice article, I was confused about the timeline, though since it's been reported, it does appear that an early termination for the probation was requested and received.

::

::of course given how publicized the events were, i do think it's relevant for the article and am happy that we came to a good resolution about how it should be included, with appropriately neutral language of course. which, i think, is beneficial wherever you sit with the case. looking at it from the other side, i'd imagine making a point to not include it could be just as bad as an explanation that only provides the most salacious details - it might make people question the article's POV, which is sorta what led me here to begin with haha.

::

::but my biggest concern was the autobiographical and COI editing, which thankfully has been addressed. the other concerns i had were very much secondary in comparison - i just became suspicious when i first read the article. then looking at the edit history, i was pretty amazed when i found out. i'd never encountered anything like that on Wikipedia, and at the time, i didn't really understand what the protocol for dealing with it was. so i just posted here. Bgx14 (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::also, since this is an older thread and everything i brought up originally has now been fully addressed, i'd be cool with moving this back into the archive but unsure if i should do it manually. Bgx14 (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1750068068}}

Should Wilson's registration as a sex offender be mentioned in the context of his sexual assault case? Gcollins94 (talk) 07:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:This has issue has been in dispute for some time (see my earlier thread as well as well as those posted by others). Essentially, there is a recurrent issue regarding context and information about Wilson's sexual assault case being removed. I raised some other concerns in that thread, but for the moment I would like to simply focus on this specific issue. My most recent edit attempt incorporated only pre-existing sources. I merely paraphrased from these article articles, providing context from them.

:If the content of these articles, which seem to be from reputable news orgs, is not in dispute, I am not sure what could be misconstrued as "libelous".

:The only point of contention, as I see it, is his current status as a "registered sex offender", noting that Vice reported that he completed his probation in 2022 (although I cannot find anything else on the status of his probation as of today - perhaps a moot point considering next year it'll have been 7 years).

:Note that this is included in this pre-existing source, right in the second paragraph: https://www.kut.org/crime-justice/2019-11-20/despite-his-criminal-record-cody-wilson-is-back-in-the-3d-printed-gun-business

:Here as well (another source that is already being used for the article): https://www.kut.org/crime-justice/2019-09-12/founder-of-austin-based-3d-printed-gun-company-gets-probation-in-underage-sex-case

:I aimed to avoid that with the latest edits. I simply provided context from the existing sources - that he was required to register as a sex offender for the duration of his probation, which isn't really disputed here.

:I also reordered events chronologically, as it was/is for some reason out of order.

:In addition, I felt that the sexual assault case being buried at the end of a general "Personal Life" section among details about his education and fraternity membership, rather than being given appropriate weight as a significant legal matter was odd given the notoriety of the case and the widely publicized international manhunt. So I added a small subsection to it, given the relevance of the case to his public figure.

:Here is the edit in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cody_Wilson&diff=1289939051&oldid=1289897635

:It would be wonderful to get some fresh eyes on this. Every piece of new context was directly pulled from pre-existing sources. If any of it is unfactual or "libelous" (as Iljhgtn's reversion mentioned), I would appreciate input. If it is, I suppose much of that section should be rewritten! Gcollins94 (talk) 07:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:I see there's multiple issues that have been debated on this talk page, and multiple edits in contention. Just specifically on this question - I don't see the issue with briefly including this detail. Something along the lines of what the Washington Post wrote: "The reduced sentence keeps Wilson out of prison but will require him to register as a sex offender for seven years of deferred adjudication probation." [https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/08/09/he-made-headlines-d-gun-activist-now-hes-pleaded-guilty-child-sex-case/]. Care just needs to be taken with accurately representing the legal details etc. Tristario (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for weighing in, Tristario. I appreciate your perspective on this - the Washington Post wording you suggested is quite clear and neutral. Sticking closely to how reliable sources have reported the facts seems like the right approach here. I'll wait for more community input before suggesting any further edits. Gcollins94 (talk) 08:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It's probably also worth noting that much of this information was previously included in a dedicated "Legal Issues" section (a standard category on many biographical pages) until January 2024, when it was removed without discussion:

:::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1197951313&oldid=1197909135&title=Cody_Wilson

:::The article had included this information, organized under its own section, going back years:

:::

:::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1016219030&oldid=1004213575&title=Cody_Wilson&diff-type=table Gcollins94 (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I would think that including a "Legal Issues" subsection in the personal life section for this would be a better way to organize the article. That probably should be done Tristario (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Let's look at the Wikipedia:BESTSOURCES that might discuss this case the subject of the article did need to "register as a sex offender", but only during the time of probation, which based on the sources would have ended around 2022 and then no sex offender registration or felony conviction is apparent according to the sources as well. The article should reflect all of this history, then, and could be updated with the following accordingly:

:::::# This source says, "He received seven years of probation and is now a registered sex offender, banned from being within 500 feet of playgrounds, schools and any other “child safety zone.” He can no longer carry a handgun in public, and, under federal law, he is barred from buying and selling weapons at gun stores." [Bold added] Registration is for the time that something or someone is registered, and after the probation period (which seems to have ended in 2022), then per the sources and terms of the plea agreement Wilson would not have been registered any longer. [https://www.kut.org/crime-justice/2019-11-20/despite-his-criminal-record-cody-wilson-is-back-in-the-3d-printed-gun-business]

:::::# This next source says, "His guilty plea this morning now comes with a recommended seven-year probation period during which Wilson must register as a sex offender." [Bold added] Again, only registered as a sex offender during the period of probation, which was later dismissed as the next source documents.[https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/08/cody-wilson-pleads-guilty-to-lesser-charges-will-register-as-a-sex-offender/]

:::::# This last source shows that the term of probation ended, and the subject's registration and offending status were all dismissed, as of November 2022. "[Wilson] 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." [Bold added][https://www.vice.com/en/article/death-athletic-documentary-jessica-solce-cody-wilson/]

:::::In summation, we can and should mention what the sources say, and the above does just that. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Thank you for your input, Iljhgtn. I genuinely appreciate your willingness to share your thoughts constructively on this topic despite the heated discussions earlier. I think we're reaching common ground here on how to present this information.

::::::Looking at the sources you've quoted, we seem to agree on the basic facts: Wilson was required to register as a sex offender during his probation period (2019-2022), after which, according to the Vice article, his probation ended and "his case was dismissed."

::::::Based on these reliable sources, the article should accurately reflect this timeline. The most straightforward way to present this information would be to:

::::::1. Create a "Legal issues" subsection within the Personal life section (as Tristario and myself agreed)

::::::2. Present the chronological sequence of events clearly

::::::3. Note both the requirement to register as a sex offender during probation and the reported completion of probation in 2022

::::::4. Use neutral language that directly reflects what the sources state, without editorializing

::::::This approach would ensure readers have accurate, sourced information about this significant aspect of Wilson's legal history, while maintaining proper context about the nature of the registration requirement as reported in the sources.

::::::Would this approach work for you? Bgx14 (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Try drafting it up below maybe and I will give you my comments. That way we don't need to revert each other and can continue back and forth in a "sandbox" type setting until we come to a common agreement over the wording. Other editors have participated, and are welcome to continue of course, but it would appear as if you and I are mostly the ones editing heavily on this article so I think we could do a good job in finalizing that wording. Go ahead and start it if you want and I'll review as I said. Thanks Bgx14. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I modified the wording a bit on that most recent edits I made, removing the judge's quote (which probably was a bit superfluous) and tried to streamline it somewhat.

::::::::Here's what I came up with now: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ABgx14%2Fsandbox&preload=Template%3AUser_sandbox%2Fpreload#

::::::::I also reordered it so that the events were in chronological order.

::::::::Thanks again to the both of you for your input. Open to any of that being improved / modified or making other things more clear.

::::::::Perhaps more could be clarified on the last bit about his current status (being off probation and all). Bgx14 (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I think that looks pretty good. At least I don't see any obvious issues with that. I would probably change the phrasing to something like "The reduced sentence did not include prison time but..." or something like that simply to avoid any possible copyright issues with using similar wording to the Washington Post article Tristario (talk) 01:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Something along these lines seems like a good idea. What's written already seems decent and largely includes this (besides the sex offender registration). Possibly the wording could be improved to make clearer how a deferred adjudication works Tristario (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I think you did some good work here Bgx14, and I just have some final corrective suggestions in wording and source aligned details that I edited your sandbox draft to. Also, it is generally not best practice to separately break out additional sections with new sub-headings within the "Personal life" section simply for contentious subject matter, so I also would remove the "Legal issues" section. That also has a tense issue. Other than that, I think it is pretty good. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@Iljhgtn Everything looks good to me

:::::::::About the subsections for legal issues - I think what we've got here sticks to just the basic facts, with your edits also helping to better clarify the legal process and timeline, keeping it straightforward and factual.

:::::::::On that note, personally I would say that there's not anything that could reasonably be considered contentious, rather it's just reading of events as they occurred. Controversial - yeah perhaps, though I don't think it's anything that might be, you know, in dispute regarding what happened.

:::::::::My thinking for having a subsection was mostly about making it easier for readers to find info, since this got a lot of international media coverage{{cite news |title=台灣知名美籍軍火商落網 涉嫌非法販槍與洗錢 |url=https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/world/breakingnews/2556608 |publisher=Liberty Times Net |date=2018-09-19 |language=zh |access-date=2025-05-15}}{{cite news |title=Bekannter US-Waffennarr in Taiwan festgenommen |url=https://www.dw.com/de/bekannter-us-waffennarr-in-taiwan-festgenommen/a-45597982 |publisher=Deutsche Welle |date=2018-09-19 |language=de |access-date=2025-05-15}}{{cite news |title=US arms dealer arrested in Taiwan |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45584598 |publisher=BBC News |date=2018-09-20 |language=en |access-date=2025-05-15}} and was, I would say, a fairly high profile event. I'd imagine there are people who come to the page specifically looking for details about this after seeing it mentioned elsewhere. Plus, it seems like such categories are fairly common on bio pages - and, from what I've seen, this article did have versions of it for awhile.

:::::::::Just trying to look at it from the other side of things, but might having the timeline of events laid out in a way that is neutral and without commentary -- would it not be better for someone curious about these events to have easy access to what we have here, rather than perhaps having to rely on sources that some might say have a particular perspective?

:::::::::But! If you do feel strongly about keeping it within the personal life section without a subsection, ultimately, I'd be fine with it. I'm honestly glad we've made progress on getting everything clearly presented, so I'd be content either way. Bgx14 (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I think from the standpoint of organization of the article and information, a subsection would probably be better. Sometimes a separate subsection shouldn't be done as it may be undue, however in this case it seems there's been a decent amount of coverage in reliable sources to justify it. I don't have strong feelings about this, though, but that's my view Tristario (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::@Tristario Yeah, I also agree that organizationally it makes more sense as a subsection, especially with the amount of media coverage it got. I'm aiming to be flexible, but seeing others think the same way about this is helpful. I definitely want to give Ilihgtn time to share his thoughts too now that there's more input on the table. Ideally whatever we come up with will be palatable to everyone.Bgx14 (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I think the latest version of Bgx14's draft found at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ABgx14%2Fsandbox&preload=Template%3AUser_sandbox%2Fpreload# in his sandbox is perfect. I would not add anything to it or take anything away, as it is presently written. I also do personally think it is WP:UNDUE to include the section heading, and so given that several other editors feel most strongly about the content being included, aligned with the sources in the draft of Bgx14's sandbox, I suggest that at this time we publish that live to the article, in the "Personal life" section and leave it at that for now. Do we have consensus for this? I am ok with publishing myself and pulling directly from Bgx14's sandbox if we are in agreement? I could do that later today or tomorrow but at the very least I'd like to first hear from Bgx14. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Sounds good to me, you can go ahead and publish it if you like. The other stuff isn't really all that important to me, so I'll defer to whatever you think is best there. Bgx14 (talk) 03:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Thanks Bgx14. I will do that now then. Once live, let me know if you think I missed anything on the transfer from your draft. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::I updated it just now. Let me know what you think. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::@Iljhgtn Looks good to me - the added context about the website is a useful detail too, I think.

::::::::::::::::Since the matter has been fully addressed, lemme see about closing out the RfC (I think that's the protocol here?)

::::::::::::::::Anyway, good work, really glad that we eventually got to meet on the same page and find something that worked for everyone in the end - it's been a fascinating experience to see how the different processes here on Wikipedia work. Bgx14 (talk) 09:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I interpreted the cited phrases {{tq|required to register as a sex offender during this period}} and {{tq| seven-year probation period during which Wilson must register as a sex offender}} somewhat differently. I am not a lawyer, but I have spent more time than the average person around them, and wording like this sets off flags. The issue is with the use of “during” or “during which” and whether this is defining the timeframe within which he must complete the action of registering as a sex offender (which is not, as some might assume, an automatic process upon conclusion of judicial proceedings, but an administrative process one must submit to) or if it is proscribing the duration of his inclusion in the registry.

::::::In the former, which I believe to be the “more correct” interpretation, the order is stipulating that as a condition for his adjudication to be considered completed, Wilson must register himself within the seven year time frame - it would of course be in his best interest to register as soon as possible, as he would want his cases reviewed for dismissal as soon as possible, and registering would be easy to check off the list and would carry significant weight with any judge he might go before. Certainly he could put it off until the last possible moment, but as his early completion seems to suggest, he did what he needed to do to be let off probation early.

::::::Furthermore, in #3, “case was dismissed” does not imply he was removed from the list of registered offenders. I need to see positive confirmation that he was in fact removed from the registry, and I am not seeing it in the provided quotes. It’s certainly been established that *something* needs to happen to *something* within a seven year span for *something* to *something*, but without knowledge of the judicial process nor of the definitive result, we are only speculating on what those *somethings* are. As logically sound as those inferences may be, we are still reaching divergent conclusions.

::::::The recently identified COI with ilghtn’s #3 still remains unaddressed. Clearly this is not a valid source. – ⓣⓡⓢ⑨ⓚ 16:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::If we search for the subject in any of the publicly available records, we see that it returns, "0" (not registered) as a result. I think it is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK...

:::::::# https://sor.dps.texas.gov/PublicSite/Search/Default/SearchByName

:::::::# https://www.austintexas.gov/services/search-registered-sex-offenders-database

:::::::Iljhgtn (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::honestly yeah, i would say that what's up now on the article reflects all of the available information. as far as the topic of this thread is concerned, i feel like the matter is settled.Bgx14 (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Who decides who is the stickholder? You’ve been as vociferous if not moreso than I throughout this process, which is clearly reflected in the edit history. I don’t see anything wrong with carrying the metaphorical stick when the stick is “not whitewashing a pedophile’s personal history” - why are you so intent on carrying water for this scumbag? I don’t get it. – ⓣⓡⓢ⑨ⓚ 04:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|"Should Wilson's registration as a sex offender be mentioned in the context of his sexual assault case?"}} Absolutely. My foremost concern regarding this article (and Wilson himself just in general) is in ensuring that this particular portion of his biography not be erased, softened, or otherwise diluted or deleted, and that it remain in the public record. How this should be included is a whole n'other matter that I wish you success in solving. – ⓣⓡⓢ⑨ⓚ 07:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)