I am a sometime Wiki editor who several years ago found, and had deleted, numerous previous biographies of Young which made ridiculous claims, including that he had been on the Milram Pro Cycling team, very easily disproven. Nothing in these versions of his biography (which was in fact anonymous auto-biography) about a troubled childhood.
All went quiet (Wiki-wise) for several years, then there was a new puff piece written by Young himself in December 2016. There were soon many edits, denouncing his cheating and providing lots of evidence of it. Young then requested that the article be removed from Wikipedia, as it was a personal attack on him. That request was declined. They article had various tweaks over several months, mainly not complementary to Young but based on sound research.
On 10 May this year, an administrator on Wikipedia deleted the article, re-wrote it in a style that took anything a newspaper had said about Young (promotional interviews at time of his book) as totally reliable, and removing anything critical or sceptical. I removed the unverifiable biographical claims, but then faced an avalanche of bullying responses from admins, saying that I was trying to set the article up as no more than an attack on the man, and threatening sanctions against me on the site.
Only administrators on Wikipedia have access to deleted articles: I have asked several times for admins to show previous claims that Young has made about himself so that readers are in an informed position to decide whether to trust Young's claims about himself, but one has yet responded, or explained why they would not do so.
There seems to be a small number of admins there who are determined to keep the article there as vanilla as possible, and unwilling to accept that newspapers are not a reliable source, even when their only source is a proven habitual liar.
But Wikipedia boasts of itself as the "encyclopaedia anyone can edit", so feel free to cast some light there.
