Talk:Robert Clark Young/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Writing about one's self

I just read that Robert Clark Young has bragged about writing this article about himself [1] Personally, I find this offensive and want people to be aware of this fact. That said, the author does deserve a Wikipedia article. I'm going to edit the article to remove the more POV elements which Clark entered in. --Alabamaboy 22:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I have now completed this task. I also added in new info on his altercation with Brad Vice (reading about this was how I came across the reference to Young messing with Wikipedia entries). --Alabamaboy 16:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Nice one! It is against Wikipedia policy to write about one's self. I see you've also removed his self promotion attempt in the Identity theft article. Good. Arcturus 19:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I removed a ton of his self promo items in various articles like that one. If you see what links to this article now, I think those are the items that can reasonably remain linked. I must admit that it disgusts me when people do this, but then to brag about doing it ... Ugh.--Alabamaboy 20:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Melanie Neilson and Wind Done Gone cases

I am going to be adding material on Mr. Young's views on and involvement in the Neilson/Kingsolver plagiarism case, as well as the Wind Done Gone/Alice Randall case. When I have time, I will begin a Melanie Neilson stub. I am having trouble finding full biographical material on Ms. Neilson, however, and will appreciate any help I can get. I have also posted this request on the Barbara Kingsolver discussion page. Thank you. Berenise 20:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't aware he was involved in those cases. Be sure to document your sources. Look forward to reading what you add.--Alabamaboy 20:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Supporting articles

I've been trying to find some links to people who supported AND gave evidence or analysis about Young's article being correct. However, this new section doesn't work: "Other source have backed Young in his acquisations, including the Daily Yomiuri[2] newspaper, and the University of Cincinnati, whose College of Arts and Sciences investigated the claims.[3]" The reason for this is that both references aren't what they seem. The Plagiarism scandal derails Vice's 'Train' by Tom Baker, Daily Yomiuri, merely summarizes Young's article. The Oops! Brad Did It Again mediabistro article merely quotes Young's claim that the U of Cinncinnati is investigating, which I have read elsewhere isn't true. I've left in a shortened version of the Daily Yomiuri article as qualified support.--Alabamaboy 16:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Thank you, Alabamaboy and Zanimum. I have looked at Zanimum's new information, as well as the links provided by Alabamaboy, and I have now done some googling of my own. There is a lot of debate on both sides, and it seems that this case is not as clear cut. There are actually seveal Mediabistro articles on the subject and they do much more than merely repeat what Mr. Young has said. There is a lot of analysis there that I think should be included in this section, including the fact that Mr. Young is being personally attacked by partisans of Mr. Vice. Upon looking more thoroughly at the links provided by Alabamaboy, that certainly appears to be the case, as both Hayden and Stewart admit that they are personal friends of Mr. Vice. These admissions do not support a strong case for "independent analysis." The more serious problem is that, except for Zanimum's addition, the links give the impression that the Internet debate--which is quite extensive in this case--is overwhelmingly in Mr. Vice's favor, which a thorough googling shows is not the case. Alabamaboy has done an excellent job with his draft of this section, but I think it needs to be moved more toward NPOV. Toward that goal, I'm going to try a redrafting along the lines of what I have said here. Thank you. Berenise 17:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Many thanks. Look forward to your edits. As you state, there are a lot of partisans involved in this issue. That said, while a number of blogs ran with the info in Young's article, I have failed to find many examples where someone independently agreed with his assertions. If you can find some of these, please add them in. However, I've tried to avoid adding references which merely repeat the info in Young's article (since references are supposed to original sources). I've also tried to put in the evidence that has the most weight (which is why I included the atlantic monthly editor's comment). Best, --Alabamaboy 17:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, Alabamaboy. I saw the Atlantic Monthly letter you cite as I was going through the blogs, and I will look at the letter again. I don't intend, btw, to change your summaries of the pro-Vice positions, but to add information on other interpretations and reactions, in the interests of NPOV. Also, Zanimum, do you have other information or perspectives you'd like us to consider? Thanks very much. Berenise 17:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the excellent reformatting work on my edits, Alabamaboy. The section now has a better flow, along with greater logical and chronological cohesion. In doing such a good job tightening the text, however, you inadvertantly left out some of the important points my edits were intended to convey. The University of Georgia did not pulp Mr. Vice's book due to an allegation of plagiarism, but due to a finding of plagiarism. Also, in moving the Mediabistro reference to its correct chronological position in the section, you omitted the fact that many of the bloggers and blog commentators who are defending Mr. Vice and attacking Mr. Young have stated that they are personal friends of Mr. Vice. Since you note a possible conflict of interest on Mr. Young's part, it is NPOV to note a conflict of interest on the part of those opposing him. (It would be expected, of course, for Mr. Vice's personal friends to rise to his defense.) In addition, I have now had a second chance to review the letter from Mr. Curtis. Contrary to what this section now states, the letter does not in fact mention Mr. Young or any of his findings, but describes Mr. Curtis's prolonged efforts to eliminate as many similarities/possible plagiarisms as possible from Mr. Vice's work. (It might be a good idea to reproduce Mr. Curtis's letter here on the discussion page.) With all of these views in mind, I will now make the relevant edits. However, these changes will be quite small, just the relevant phrasings here and there. I am not going to change the structure of what you have done, which, again, is a generous improvement on your part. I think the section is much improved and just needs some tweaking for enhanced NPOV. Thanks again. Berenise 23:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your edits. However, some of your comments are very POV. For example, the UGAPRESS may have believed it was plagiarism but others dispute this, so the word "alleged" is probably a better NPOV choice. However, if you prefer we could state something like "what UGAPRESS believed to be plagiarism" (or words to that effect). In addition, Young's article wasn't about "Tuscaloosa Knights" also appearing in Vice's dissertation, it was about plagiarism and the new allegations which Young made. Since the dissertation was an earlier version of the book UGAPRESS published, obviously "Tuscaloosa Knights" would be in it. Your use of summarized is fine and I left that in.

However, Curtis's letter says point blank we was aware of Dent's book and "… and decided to postpone its publication until we had worked with Vice to prevent easily-avoided overlap in some particular details. The story of Bear Bryant’s first A&M football team seemed to us well-known and not the property of Mr. Dent or anyone else. Further, the heart of the story we believed, then and now, to be the invention of Brad Vice, even though elements of its drama is placed in the familiar setting, as above."[4] Your addition of "focusing instead on Curtis's efforts to eliminate possibly plagiarized passages from Vice's work" seems to me to be a POV spin on what Curtis said.

Finally, in the last section your removed where the article states that Vice's supporters said one thing, and Young's said another. Your saying that Vice's supporters said one thing, but attributing statements of support for Young not to his supporters (but to "Many of the bloggers and others who commented on the Vice case" and such) is very POV. Anyway, I tried to meld your edits with my own while retaining NPOV. Let me know what you think. Also, instead of having tit for tat edits lets discuss this here, if you don't mind. Best,--Alabamaboy 01:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Clearly, the UGA Press would not withdraw and destroy a book simply because someone had made an allegation. UGA clearly concluded this was an instance of plagiarism, else they wouldn't have taken the action. Let's work together to put together some language that satisfies both of us in this regard, while reflecting the fact (supported by all accounts) that UGA Press conducted its own investigation and arrived at its own findings.
I am curious as to two deletions you have now made, twice in each instance. Based on a chronological analysis of this story in the media and blogosphere, Young was the first to discover and report that the Tuscaloosa Knights story appears not only in the pulped book, but also in the dissertation. Why do you keep removing this fact?
And you have also now twice removed the fact that many of Mr. Vice's supporters have a clear conflict of interest, being personal friends of Mr. Vice, which they cheerfully admit up-front. The reason I raise this is because the article already mentions an alleged conflict of interest on the part of Mr. Young, and NPOV would require that we also mention a conflict of interest among some of those attacking Mr. Young, especially when that conflict of interest is self-admitted.
Finally, I'm very confused on your take on the Curtis letter. Thanks very much for posting it here, btw. His letter does not mention Mr. Young, his article, or any of his specific findings. Instead, the letter says "...decided to postpone its publication until we had worked with Vice to prevent easily-avoided overlap in some particular details." This clearly indicates that the Atlantic Monthly thought there was a plagiarism problem with Vice's story, that they tried to eliminate the problem, and opens the question as to whether they were entirely successful. It seems to me a great stretch for our article to say that Curtis's letter "refuted" Young's claims. I think it's perfectly fine to say that some chose to interpret it that way, but that interpretation is highly POV and needs some NPOV balancing.
I'm glad that you want to discuss these matters here, rather than just change my contributions ad infinitum, which we both agree would be counterproductive. It's a pleasure cowriting this with you, btw. Could you come up with some specific language that addresses the remaining concerns? Thanks again for your thoughtfulness. Berenise 02:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks back at you. For the UGAPRESS thing, how about we say "Vice's collection was later pulled from the shelves and destroyed by his publisher based on what it believed to be a case of plagiarism."

As for "Based on a chronological analysis of this story in the media and blogosphere, Young was the first to discover and report that the Tuscaloosa Knights story appears not only in the pulped book, but also in the dissertation." I must admit I only know what I read in news accounts but nowhere was it a big deal that this story appeared in both the dissertation and the book. All parties seem to admit that this was the case b/c the book came out of the dissertation. To me, the relevant issue is that the Young claims to have found new instances of plagiarism. However, if this is important to you then go ahead and put it back in.

As for the supporters thing, I think it is vitally important for achieving NPOV that we state "Vice's supporters mentioned that Young had previously had a run in with Hannah and Vice at the Sewanee Conference and suggested that his article about Vice was an attempt at revenge. In response to this, some of Young's supporters said that a smear campaign was being conducted against Young by Vice's advocates." In short, these comments are a "he said, she said" and should be treated as such. Vice has his supporters; Young has his. This sentence says as much (in a referenced way). We could also remove all reference to this (although I feel this would do readers a diservice by not allowing them to make their own conclusions).

Finally, the Curtis letter. His letter says nothing about "This clearly indicates that the Atlantic Monthly thought there was a plagiarism problem with Vice's story, that they tried to eliminate the problem, and opens the question as to whether they were entirely successful." How about if we change the sentence to include the entire quote from Curtis, such as follows: "[The Atlantic Monthly]]'s C. Michael Curtis, who edited and published the story by Vice which Young claimed proved an additional case of plagiarism, later said he, "Decided to postpone (the story's) publication until we had worked with Vice to prevent easily-avoided overlap in some particular details. The story of Bear Bryant’s first A&M football team seemed to us well-known and not the property of (the author of Vice's source material) or anyone else. Further, the heart of the story we believed, then and now, to be the invention of Brad Vice, even though elements of its drama is placed in the familiar setting."" By quoting directly, we get around any conflict over interpretation.

Let me know what you think of this.--Alabamaboy 02:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello again. I like all of your suggestions for additions to the article. I'll go ahead and update everything we've agreed upon, which is...
    • "Young was the first to discover and report that the Tuscaloosa Knights story appears not only in the pulped book, but also in the dissertation." This information was referenced, btw, in one of the links that was removed: [5] Mediabistro is a larger site than the blogs that are referenced, so if you think this link should be put back into the article, I'll go ahead and add it.
    • The Curtis quote. I like your idea of including Curtis's actual quote and eliminating any interpretation of how it should be read. I'll go ahead and do that.
Based on the list you provided, it looks like the only thing left to hash out is minor editing in reference to Mr. Vice's supporters and Mr. Young's supporters. I don't think there's any problem with how you've organized the paragraph. But I think it's very important that if we're going to mention conflict of interest on one side, then we should mention conflict of interest on the other side, especially since Mr. Young's purported conflict of interest is nothing more than an Internet rumor appearing on blogs, while the conflict on the part of many of Mr. Vice's leading defenders--his personal friends--is self-admitted. I think this is an important point that can be addressed with a short phrase. Of course, we could also address the issue by dropping all mention of conflicts of interest. Let me know what you think about this one, so that the article will be as NPOV as possible in this regard.
Thanks again for all your feedback and excellent co-writing! Berenise 19:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Edits look good. I formatted the quote and made some minor edits. However, I still oppose changing the supporters paragraph. I went back and read the comments in support of Vice and only a few of them claim to be Vice's friends. P.M. Cormano did not claim friendship, neither does Dan Wicket of Emerging Writers or that story south editor or others. As such, to portray Vice's supporters as friends but Young's supporters as simple neutral observers is not something I can support. As someone who learned about all of this by reading the different sides on this issue, the claims of Young seeking revenge and Vice's defenders doing a smear campaign both sound like partisan talk. In addition, a number of Vice's supporters have publically made claims that this is a case of revenge while only one place (mediabistro) has said this is a smear campaign against Young. As such, let's leave that paragraph as is. Best, --Alabamaboy 00:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Guidelines: Blogs as Primary and Secondary Sources

While reading a Wikipedia article on an unrelated topic, I came across a link to the Wikipedia Guidelines on blogs as primary and secondary sources:[6] According to the guidelines, blogs should be used as primary sources only when the article is about the blog owner, and then with great caution; blogs should not be used at all as secondary sources. I apologize for not having been previously aware of these guidelines, and from now on I will be following them wherever applicable in my editing.

I now think this article should be sourced again, this time with a view toward the guidelines, which indicate that legitimate and established news sources should be used instead of blogs. I don't think any changes at all are required in terms of overall structure; at best, some of the content might need to be slightly adjusted. Fortunately, in sections such as the the Brad Vice Internet debate, legitimate news sources have become available, such as this one from a newspaper in Alabama: [7]

Again, I apologize for allowing this to slip by earlier, as I was not aware of the guidelines. I propose to make the relevant adjustments. Berenise 08:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This message is for Alabamaboy--I don't know if you are still reading this page, but I just now discovered on the Brad Vice page that you have found another excellent and legitimate news story on the case, from the Denver Post--[8]. When I make adjustments to this article, I would also like to use this excellent link that you have found. Best,Berenise 08:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the stuff with Brad Vice was mainly covered at first in the online media, hence the use of blogs as references. Where possible I've referenced magazines and newspapers (and just read another article about the affair in Poets and Writers and will add that when I get a chance). However, the funny thing is most of these print articles reference the blogs and online sources in their coverage. As a result, the blog references need to stay because they are the primary source and, by referencing them, many of the print references are secondary sources (as in common in research, one does not reference a secondary source when you can reference the primary). In addition, it appears that one of the newspapers involved in this affair (the New York Press) did not employ fact checkers b/c errors were found in the article. While the guidelines say that print sources are prefered, that doesn't mean that we should ignore the blogs (btw, check out Wikipedia:Ignore all rules for another view). Anyway, feel free to add in more print sources but please do not remove the online references in this article. Best, --Alabamaboy 14:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I should add that, in looking over the article, the two main blogs that are referenced are tied in with Storysouth and the Emerging Writers Network. One of this is a well-known online literary journal about the American South and the other is a credible and known person who deals with new writers' issues. As such, they are not really blogs but share the credibity of their larger publisher (see the talk page at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources for more on this). As the guidelines you referenced stated, "Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them."[9] Since the authors of these two blogs are known in their fields and identified, I trust their credibility. I do agree that some of the other blogs referenced in the article (From here to obscurity and Medibistro) are not as credible b/c the authors of these blogs are not publically known and could be any Tom, Dick, or Harriet. However, I'd even leave their info in b/c what they reference is ofmore minor relevance to the article and merely quotes reactions from people, which would seem a valid use of this type of blog. Best, --Alabamaboy 14:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. The wording in the guidelines is this: "Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources."
The path here is clear. No blogs should be used as sources for this article, and we need to remove them. This is an NPOV move, since we are talking about removing all the blogs, pro-Young and pro-Vice. We now have newspaper sources that cover almost all of the same material, so we can adhere to the guidelines and use the papers. I don't want to get into a debate as to the merits of the various blogs, since, being blogs, they are all open to the same deficiencies--for example, their owners have stated that they are friends or associates of Mr. Vice or others, there are rife opportunities for sock puppets--all of the problems that are referenced in the Wikipedia guidelines that state blogs should not be used. What say we take out this Obscurity blog right now? The guy admits that he and his wife are lifelong friends of Mr. Vice. But again, all the blogs should go and be replaced with the newspapers.Berenise 20:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually what you state is not clear and what you propose is wrong. In short, the online references are refered to in the newspaper and print articles, making the online sources primary sources. Young's original newspaper article refers to the Storysouth online journal and blog entry by name, as does the Daily Yomiru (japanese) newspaper (which also refers to the Emerging Writers blog. Using second-hand sources, even if they are print sources, instead of the primary sources is not good research. Finally, your recent edits made the article less NPOV b/c they removed opposing viewpoints. While these references may be online, they are from credible named sources who are considered experts in their respected areas. I feel we have a good mix of references and they should be left as is b.c the article is ballances and presents both sides of this issue from a NPOV.--Alabamaboy 14:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

One final final note: It occurred to me as I reread this article that we should remove the C. Michael Curtis quote. It doesn't add anything to the article that isn't already there and it is so, so long. I'm fine with the quote being in the Brad Vice article but here, it is just too much. Any thoughts on that?--Alabamaboy 14:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about that. If the letter were referenced only in blogs, I'd say let's get rid of it, because anyone could have made it up. However, I believe I have seen a newspaper source that references it (I'll double-check). In any case, I think the letter is very good, because Mr. Curtis, who is a very respected editor at a print magazine, details his protracted struggle to eliminate plagiarism from Mr. Vice's work. This leaves open the question as to whether all of it was removed or not. In addition, Curtis's letter has been read by some as an attempt to limit the Atlantic Monthly's legal exposure, as they could hardly be legally accused of having knowingly published plagiarized material if they at least tried to eliminate some of it. We worked together quite well in achieving a compromise for the Curtis letter to stay. For these reasons, I think it should remain, at least for now.Berenise 20:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
That's cool. Just seems to really interupt the flow of the article.--Alabamaboy 20:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Berenise possibly Robert Clark Young?

This question is posed to User:Berenise: Are you Robert Clark Young? I ask this because I previously discovered Young editing the article about himself (a conflict with Wikipedia guidelines since it was done secretly) and almost all of your edits on Wikipedia have been to this article. I had a suspicion before but assumed good intentions and let it go. However, despite the issues I raised on the article's talk page you went ahead and deleted all online references in Young's article, which ended up removing almost anything negative about Young (while this doesn't personally bother me, since I generally agree with Young's assertions about Vice--if still having questions about certain possible mistakes in Young's article--but encyclopedia articles need to be ballanced). Anyway, I have no desire to ask for a checkuser on you. An easier way to clear this up is for you to use the e-mail function to contact me. Since you have publically stated that you are a sociologist, you should have a university e-mail in your name. I will not reveal your name to anyone upon receiving this e-mail proof and will vouch publically that you are not Young and also make a complete apology for saying this. In fact, I apologize in advance for asking this. However, since Young has a history of editing this article about himself and since your user contributions show an almost exclusive focus on the Young article, I hope you will understand why I ask this. If you are Young, you are welcome to edit this article as long as you do it publically so that people can take that into consideration of your edits. (Shoot, if you're Young I'd like to say how much I enjoyed reading your book One of the Guys and also ask, when's your next novel coming out?) If you are not Young, I apologize for saying all of this and look forward to clearing this up. Best,--Alabamaboy 00:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL! No, Alabamaboy, I can assure you that I am not Mr. Young. Nor will I suggest--again, lol!--that you are Mr. Vice or a personal friend of his. I do think it very amusing that you might think this. Actually I went back to your original post on that issue (top of this page) and in fact you appear to be mistaken on that score--there is in fact no news source that states that Mr. Young wrote his own article. Neither can I find such a news source in a quick googling. (If I'm wrong, and there is a newspaper story about that, please provide it.)
In terms of sourcing the article in the best way possible, which, according to Wikipedia Guidelines, requires the use of newspapers and other legitimate print sources over the use of blogs, let's go over to the discussion page for the guidelines and see what the people over there think. I certainly have no intention of getting into a revert war over it, but I think that the guidelines should be followed, and it seems to me that the folks who have previously studied this issue should be the first to be consulted so that we can resolve the matter. Best,Berenise 01:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. Please e-mail me so we can clear this up. The reference I saw to RCY editing his article was in a blog and is at the top of this page. When I investigated, the pattern of edits (and the large number of unreasonable links to Young's article from other Wikipedia article) supported the blog's statement that Young edited this article. Once we clear up that you are not Young, I'll be happy to bring others into this discussion about references.--Alabamaboy 01:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

After looking over your edits ever more closely, I'm even more inclined to believe you are Young. Over two-third of your total edits on Wikipedia are directly related to this Young article. In addition, of your other edits a number of them show a direct correlation with Young. For example, you wrote a stub article on Melany Neilson, whom Young wrote about (as detailed here Robert_Clark_Young#The_Neilson.2FKingsolver_and_Wind_Done_Gone_Controversies). You also made comments at Talk:Barbara Kingsolver about this Melany Neilson plagiarism case. Finally, your other major edit was to Mazatlán, located near where Young grew up in Southern California. Aside from these edits, your few other edits are minor typo corrections and such. Finally, your writing style seems very similar to Young's writing style (he has a distinct style, as seen in the New York Press article). Anyway, as I've previously stated if I am wrong I would love to clear this up. Please use the Wikipedia e-mail function to contact me so we can clear this up. And, as I previously stated, there's nothing which states Young can't edit this article as long as he does it publically so people know he edited it. Best,--Alabamaboy 15:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Five Wikipedia Policies Violated

User:John Bryson alleges that portions of this talk page violate Wikipedia policy, and has repeatedly tried to censor this page. Unfortunately for John Bryson, his actions strongly resemble the behavior of User:Berenise, the person who is the subject of the allegations which John Bryson seeks to censor. Could two different Wikipedians be this interested in Robert Clark Young's reputation? It is possible, I suppose.

But instead of a slow edit war, a far better way to resolve this issue would be to have a discussion here on the edit page about whether the User:Berenise allegations and notice should be deleted from the page. If this is not a suitable forum then perhaps more formal mediation will be required. Shoehorn 04:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

By all means let it be discussed here or on the BLP discussion page. I'll repost what I wrote on Shoehorn's talk page:
Thank you for your comments and invitation to respond. One of the prime reasons some people don't trust Wikipedia is because at times it fails to enforce its own self-regulating policies. There is no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Young has ever edited Wikipedia or ever visited here. A woman on a blog (an unreliable source by Wikipedia's own official policies) fabricated this allegation, which is the sole source of the negative information. The Living Person's Biography policy clearly states that all poorly sourced negative information must IMMEDIATELY be removed from talk pages and articles. (With the 3-revert rule suspended.) The other information being deleted regards a particularly ugly incident in which a Wikipedia administrator attempted to 1) blackmail a user (against Wikipedia policies) and 2) attempted (falsely) to "unmask" a user (also strictly against Wikipedia policies).
The page in question violates all of the following FIVE OFFICIAL policies:
1) Good faith is not assumed
2) BLP policy is not followed
3) A blog with false information is used as a source
4) An editor is blackmailed by an administrator
5) An administrator charges without evidence that an editor is Mr. Young, and accuses an anonymous editor of being a specific person, which is against Wikipedia policies
Thus, the material you keep adding back in contains no less than five violations of official Wikipedia policies. How can this possibly be justified?
Do these policies mean nothing? Do you understand why so many editors have left Wikipedia, why no college or university admits Wikipedia as a reliable source, why Wikipedia's reputation among the general public keeps plummetting?
It's because Wikipedia sets up all of these elaborate policies to protect living people, and then as many as five of them are violated over and over on pages such as these.
I am assuming good faith here and working from the assumption that you are a fair-minded person who wasn't aware of what was going on with the talk page in question. Please help to ensure that it follows these five official Wikipedia policies. Thank you John Bryson 07:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Let's also note that this is an official Wikipedia Guideline:
The policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages. Research and debate should meet the same standards of verification, neutral point of view and no original research. . . . it is a serious misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements.
This guideline can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines John Bryson 08:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
And from the same page, we have the specific guideline that prohibits the attempted unmasking of anons:
BEHAVIOR THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE
Never post personal details: Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely
Thus, anyone who has made, or continues to make, an unfounded charge about what he or she believes is the personal information of Berenise, or any other user, is liable to be blocked.
John Bryson 08:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Blackmail? I see no evidence of blackmail. Are you referring to Alabamaboy's request that Berenise contact him through the Wikipedia email page? If not, I have no idea what you are referring to.
Please stop deleting the discussion in question. Shoehorn 05:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Does someone here know to which WP authorities people like User:Berenise/User:John Bryson can be reported to stop him from making this project a complete joke? You're so obvious, man, and it just keeps in line with the accusations of anonymous self-promotion and vengeful behaviour made against the subject of this article on various blogs and forums! -- Imladros 01:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Weblink sabotage

Hey, sorry if I'm going about this the wrong way, but I noticed that the two links in item 9 of the references have been subtly altered to make them inactive. In one "emerging_writers" has been changed to "emerginwriters" and in the other, "blogspot" has been changed to "blogsot." Both were active previously, and both link to sources critical of the subject. I couldn't figure out how to correct them myself. Thanks . . . 66.32.99.178 06:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC) Ken Landry

You are absolutely right, and this is absolutely the right place to point this sabotage out - and sabotage it is; the edit history of the user who made this change shows clearly that all his edits were done between 19:15 and 20:02 on the 18th of July, 2006. Almost all of them are crude capitalizations that do not make any sense: only in the Robert Clark Young article did he change the weblinks, affecting their function, and I'm quite sure he did that on purpose. The other edits were obviously done to hide his true intentions.
Whoever the person behind all these IPs and user names messing with this article and talk page is (and personally, I am quite sure I know who he is...), this person is really beginning to show a criminal energy that I must say impresses me. I think I'll do some talking to WP officials about this matter. Enough is enough.
-- Imladros 01:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/b/Talk%7ERobert_Clark_Young_Archive_1_60ec.html"