Talk:Victor Yannacone

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

PeoplesBarrister (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection. (This edit plus others imply that this editor claims to be the article's subject.)

Information needed

Does anyone know Victor Yannacone's date of birth? If they do, please include it in the article. Thanks. DarthVad e r 05:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As of February 2016, Radaris.com lists a "Victor John Yannacone", age ~79, who has lived in Patchogue, New York, so that's probably the correct identification. That would put his birth year circa 1937. — Quicksilver^{T @} 18:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 10, 1936 PeoplesBarrister (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 10, 1936 PeoplesBarrister (talk) 23:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes for phrase authorship

I’m not certain how to add these footnotes.

Quotation authorship - “Sue the Bastards”

Quotation authorship - “Sue the bastards” Dr. Jillian Todd Weiss (talk) 08:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest reading through WP:REFB, which will explain in much more detail than I can about how to add references. Primefac (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COI tag

Article has clearly been extensively edited by an account associated with the subject and is of a promotional nature. Axad12 (talk) 04:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected

Due to the ongoing content dispute, I have protected the page for two days so that consensus for the proposed changes by a COI editor can be established here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soul-searching

Sock blocked. Nonsense put away. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@C.Fred, Significa liberdade, Axad12, Synorem, Justanothersgwikieditor, The Bushranger, and PeoplesBarrister:

I’ve been quite shocked by some attitudes here toward PeoplesBarrister over recent months, and particularly in recent days, after they attempted a substantial revision of this article.

The aggressive and immediate reversions, the scolding and harassing notices on their Talk page, threats of blocking, protecting the page from edits—none of that has been OK. I understand there are serious WP:COI issues, but this hasn’t been balanced with other issues of weight. (There’s a reason why COI edits, while strongly discouraged, are not “banned” or “forbidden.” They are often an essential starting point.)

What’s more, there have been severely disturbing WP:BULLY tactics here—a disease more harmful than any COI problem—including a complete lack of WP:CIVILITY and WP:ETIQ, failure to engage in WP:GOODFAITH, casting WP:ASPERSIONS on a user’s intentions, pretending to WP:OWN content, issuing WP:NOEDIT orders, starting an WP:EDITWAR and then WP:GASLIGHTING the other party about it.

It goes without saying, WP:COI is a foundational issue. But you don’t get to WP:CRY COI without bothering to look at a user's edits before reflexively reverting. Longstanding consensus says WP:ONLYREVERT to undo vandalism or truly disruptive editing; whatever the issues here, it was neither of those. The revision was worth taking seriously. WP:COMMONSENSE isn't hard.

Some younger folks may not be aware of Victor Yannacone as a highly WP:NOTABLE figure, and why this article is worth the attention. But I’m old enough to remember when his work made national headlines, and I’m also familiar with his work on environmental law, which had a lasting impact. This article reflects it all very poorly. This could’ve been remedied if editors took PeoplesBarrister’s contributions seriously, even while exercising due caution. The essence of Wikipedia is to encourage contributors, not alienate them.

PeoplesBarrister’s Talk page shows they got harsh scoldings from the get-go, treated as if they were some menace to society, simply for being WP:CLUELESS—contrary to the very essential WP:DONTBITE. They also found helpful editors who seemed more understanding and who gave them good advice. Except the end result appears to have been a conflicting mess. While some couldn’t get off their high preachy horses, others gently explained Wikipedia principles and told them they don’t need to ask permission for every edit.

Now, PeoplesBarrister made a very strenuous attempt to revise the article, guided (in their view) by the advice of those more helpful editors. THIS IS NO CRIME. WP:BEBOLD means just that: do your best. I went through the revision pretty thoroughly, and it’s a rather remarkable (if flawed) attempt, compared to their earlier efforts. Tonally, it is perhaps more journalistic than encyclopedic, but that can be fixed. What's more, it backs up facts and assertions with substantial citations. (In fact, the citations are particularly noteworthy, as many are of very high quality with links to PDF scans from books and academic journals rather than links to protected sites, which substantially eases WP:Verifiability—more than can be said for a lot if not most citations here).

Within mere minutes, PeoplesBarrister’s edits were reverted—repeatedly, and IMO egregiously. The timeline shows the content was not engaged with even for the briefest moment. There were no attempts to see which parts were or were not useful/problematic. There was no discussion. It was all dismissed as self-promotion. (To be so unable or unwilling to follow a fact to its cited source, to distinguish fact from fluff, should automatically disqualify one from an admin position, if applicable.) And the boilerplate WP:CONSENSUS whinging is just utterly absurd. If there are details in dispute, open a discussion about them. You want it all in dispute? That’s fine too. Start the discussion. Don’t just throw people’s edits back in their faces. That is the more seriously WP:DISRUPTIVE editing by any definition.

I’ve been reading, writing, and editing on Wikipedia for nearly two decades, in English and several other languages, and the behavior here is a parody of the worst editor behavior. This sort of garbage happens all over Wikipedia—it’s the nature of the site. But there’s no rule that editors have to be jerks in order to earn their bona fides. I’d suggest some real soul-searching here.

(Worth adding: editors might want to think about age-ism in particular. If the COI is as is claimed, some of the attitudes here are particularly disturbing in light of that.)

My own interest here is simple: 1. I’ve had limited contact with PeoplesBarrister as they drafted their revision, to offer some broad guidance regarding Wikipedia policies and guidelines, from what I know. (My understanding is they sought help from others as well.) 2. I have been familiar with Victor Yannacone’s work from public reports and academic scholarship over the years, and I believe this article doesn't do the subject justice, and a serious attempt should be made to improve it.

I don’t otherwise know PeoplesBarrister nor Victor Yannacone, have never met them, and I don’t endorse or approve of the revision as posted. But I do know there’s no excuse for the uncivil behavior toward a user who has valuable contributions, however flawed. I am dismayed that editors had a chance to seriously improve this article but tossed it all away. IMO a corrective is definitely in order.

I have zero interest in needless argumentation or being the next entry in the WP:HALLOFLAME. That said, I’d be happy to work on this article collaboratively with others, if any are willing, working from the ground up. PeoplesBarrister’s revision has a wealth of strong sources for starters. I don’t have a ton of time, but this is a disturbing situation, and if there’s a way I can help correct it, I’d do my best. Any takers, ping me. HickorySmoked (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HickorySmoked, I think you are misunderstanding a simple situation where a user (apparently the subject of the article) attempted to introduce a highly promotional rewrite of the article despite having a conflict of interest and then proceeded to edit war over their favoured version. That is not being bold it is being disruptive. For the user to have done that 5 times within an hour could easily have got them blocked. The fact that they have not been blocked demonstrates that considerable latitude has been shown.

If PeoplesBarrister or you (apparently their wingman) have any specific constructive amendments that you would like to make to the article, which are neither a copyright violation (WP:COPYVIO) nor of a promotional nature, then those amendments need to be made via the COI edit request process, as outlined here: WP:COI. The user was in fact advised of this requirement on their talk page back on August and their refusal to take that route was in large part responsible for subsequent events.

I would suggest that perhaps you try a COI edit request with, say, 5 relatively short well-sourced additions that you think would be productive, rather than with a complete re-write.

Much of the rest of what you have said above is clearly BS allegations against well-intentioned good faith editors. I would suggest that you tone that down straight away. You might also attempt being concise in your future posts, as I for one will not be reading through any further stream of consciousness material along the lines of your post above. Axad12 (talk) 13:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You’re distorting the facts.

The user posted a revision of the article, and you started reverting even as they were making edits, which is irresponsible and disrespectful. It’s all right there in the history.

You call it “promotional” without even raising a single fact or assertion for checking. If I thought Albert Einstein wrote his own article, I’d call that too promotional too. An article should be judged on its merits, not dismissed wholesale based on your very shallow preconceptions.

If you object to an article, you must do so on the basis of its actual contents, after actually reading it and checking it. If you do not have the capacity to do so, you shouldn’t be editing here.

If you claim not blocking a new user is some sign of benevolence you are severely undermining yourself.

You might want to refrain from calling people names (“wingman”).

I will not engage with you further if you lack the capacity for constructive engagement.

HickorySmoked (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion above that you or PeoplesBarrister use the COI edit request process was constructive engagement.

If you are no longer prepared to engage here further then I doubt if anyone will be overly troubled.

If you wish to lobby Wikipedia to change its policies and allow individuals to write their own articles then good luck to you. However, in the meantime there are plenty of volunteer editors who will quite correctly revert all such edits on sight.

Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 15:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“COI editing is strongly discouraged.” That’s a behavioral guideline, not a policy forbidding COI edits. There is no such policy, and it’s sad you feel the need to pull things out of thin air. You clearly haven’t been around here very long.

Ultimately, it comes down to thoughtful editors assessing the content on its merits. That’s what a COI edit request is at its essence.

Sad that it’s devolved to insecure admins on petty power trips thinking they make policy in their imaginary little fiefdoms. I’m not going to keep arguing on this. You can continue with your smug arrogance, but you’re still wrong. But you do you lol

HickorySmoked (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HickorySmoked if you have actually read the diff on that talkpage, you would not have tagged me into this long wall of text. I have only placed a template to keep the references in that section.

This actually strongly discredited whatever you wrote here as you are unable to differentiate who wrote what. Please do not ping or involve me in this nonsensical matter. ~ JASWE (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HickorySmoked Now I noted that you has a ten year old account with last recent edits ten year ago. You came back to edit to launch screenfuls of texts against various editors. Also see WP:TPO on editing/removing other editors comment. If you like to retract your comment/statement/essay, strike it off, leave a comment or at least note it on edit summary. ~ JASWE (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot be positive, civil, and polite, then I have nothing to say to you. Good luck. HickorySmoked (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Looking at my contributions to this issue, it appears that I informed the editor about edit-warring. Regardless of whether PeoplesBarrister's edits were COI, promotional, or perfectly acceptable, editors should not engage in edit wars. When there appears to be a content dispute, editors are encouraged to discuss it on the talk page, which PeoplesBarrister has not done. I have no comment regarding the other matters. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting that editors who claim to have been editing for almost 2 decades and who have an apparently extensive knowledge of both policies & guidelines and how to remove talk page discussions should not be editing under an account whose contribution history only shows 7 edits made 10 year ago. For which see WP:SOCKPUPPET. Axad12 (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to comment on potential sockpuppeting, but my quick assumption was that HickorySmoked had potentially been more active on other Wikipedia. However, although there are accounts across several Wikis, I'm only seeing edits on the English Wikipedia. This, of course, does not discount any amount of reading they may do of policy, etc. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the allegations above re: scolding and harassing, bullying, failure to engage in WP:GOODFAITH, casting WP:ASPERSIONS on a user’s intentions, pretending to WP:OWN content, issuing WP:NOEDIT orders, starting an WP:EDITWAR and then WP:GASLIGHTING the other party about it, also re: a parody of the worst editor behavior and This sort of garbage happens all over Wikipedia—it’s the nature of the site. But there’s no rule that editors have to be jerks, can I suggest that an administrator issues a warning re: casting aspersions, personal attacks or similar?

Some of the comments in that long post were completely unacceptable and anyone who claims to have been active on Wikipedia for any amount of time would have been aware of that prior to making the post. Axad12 (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I protected the page to force discussion to establish consensus to stop the edit-war. No more, no less. (2) "wingman" is not "calling people names". (3) HickorySmoked, the only person here who is not "be[ing] positive, civil, and polite" is you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]