Talk:Sam Maleski

Relationship with Arcbeatle

I have no memory of this, but two years ago Scrooge said that there should be no mention of Sam Maleski being cut off from Arcbeatle because of "inappropriate conduct with fellow writers". Scrooge did say, however, "I propose we table this discussion until a week or so from now, by which point the dust should have cleared."

It's now been two years and I don't see any problem with mentioning this statement from Arcbeatle on Maleski's page and on Down the Middle and Hearts of Glass. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 12:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I have complicated feelings about the entire issue, to say the least, which I would prefer not to go into. With that said, I'm not in principle against using that particular statement on this page as well. I recommend others voice their opinions, because I'm deeply unsure how I feel about it. Najawin ☎ 12:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we need mention anything other than what Arcbeatle said in their statement. We already mention on other pages that ties have been cut and I don't see why we shouldn't mention the reason as given by Arcbeatle. We've done far more on James Dreyfus. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 12:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Dreyfus wasn't explicitly brought up in the discussion that led to me asking Scrooge about this, but Hartnell and Roberts were, see Talk:Christa Mactíre. It was due to this discussion that I asked Scrooge about Maleski at User talk:Scrooge MacDuck/Archive 3#Stupid awful fandom drama. The rest of the relevant discussion is at User talk:Najawin/Archive 3#Re:Stupid awful fandom drama and User talk:Jack "BtR" Saxon/Archive 1#Re:"fandom drama" for those reading this discussion. There are some differences, and I fully admit that the dust may have settled enough for us to mention this, especially with the statement being what it is. But it's not 1-1. Najawin ☎ 12:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I think we should cover the information at Hearts of Gold, which seems to be the natural intersection of "information about the author" and "information about the publisher". – n8 (☎) 14:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

James Dreyfus and Gareth Roberts have entire sections dedicated to controversy. I don't see why a single mention on Maleski's page would be contentious. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 21:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

So, again, I'm not super against documenting it at this page, but when this happened, there were multiple allegations against multiple people, which were supported with varying levels of strength. I know none of these people, and, quite frankly, I'm predisposed to dislike Maleski because he's French, but to me at the time the situation was messy. And events since then have not changed my mind on that subject. Najawin ☎ 21:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

There's definitely no point in mentioning anything about the allegations; simply mentioning that Arcbeatle cut ties with him and that "inappropriate conduct with fellow writers" was the reason given by the company is plenty, I think. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 21:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I’d say it’s fair to have information about his wrongdoings if we cover other people’s wrongdoings. —Danniesen ☎ 22:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, the result of alleged wrongdoings. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 22:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Right, and, to be clear, my understanding is that the specific allegations that I talked to Scrooge about are actually well supported. (I didn't go and look at them, I don't need that in my life, thank you.) It's just that the surrounding context is not directly analogous to Dreyfus and Roberts and is messy. I think the concern of us "seeming to pick sides" was well founded at the time, and is well founded now. I'd, at the very least, like input from more users like Danniesen. Najawin ☎ 22:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not directly comparable, no, but mentioning the statement that Arcbeatle released can't possibly be considered choosing a side. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 22:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely, we should get our facts straight. It just seemed to me that the first couple of comments in this thread suggested we should shy away from covering anything. We shouldn’t, as we don’t on Dreyfus and others. But only once facts are straight. I don’t know much about this issue in particular myself, other than the Cwej-story being cut out. —Danniesen ☎ 22:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Mentioning that they're no longer working with Maleski? Sure. Mentioning the reason they give for this? Eh. Again, the statement given is fine, I'm not super against using it. But I do think it merits discussion. Given how I've consistently been saying we should talk about things more in every forum thread that's happened so far and in every talk page in recent memory, I don't think this is out of character for me. ;) Najawin ☎ 22:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)