User talk:Ryoung122

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:RYoung)
Jump to: navigation, search

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

Puppeter template.svg

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ryoung122 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Canadian Paul 19:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Your biased, POV-pushing editing makes Wikipedia a worse place, and less-informed, CP. Considering the history you have shown against me, certainly you should have considered recusing yourself from such an investigation.

Again, your edits make Wikipedia a worse place and the Wikipedia reader less-informed. Have a nice day. Ryoung122 16:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeatedly evading your topic ban by editing while logged out, as established at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ryoung122. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. T. Canens (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Ryoung122 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Greetings, I am appealing this "block" on several grounds, which I feel are unfair:
  • 1. Decision was made even before I had a chance to respond.
  • 2. User CanadianPaul has a history of "anti-Robert-Young" editing...he has a problem with ME, not with the edit results. Thus, his request for a CheckUser is a Conflict-of-Interest request. Notice that CanadianPaul did not reverse this edit, he only complained of who did it: 15:20, 5 September 2012‎ 69.15.219.71 (talk)‎ . . (2,864 bytes) (-78)‎ . . (deleted fancruft. Get real. He's the only one because he's a man, and an exception was made to add him early. That's nothing special, that's the opposite of special...an "honorable mention"=didn't make it on its own merit) (undo) So, might I ask: is it really detrimental to Wikipedia to allow an edit which improves Wikipedia? Or, is it detrimental to Wikipedia to block someone who has positive contributions to make to Wikipedia?
  • 3. User JohnJBulten, who was pushing religious fundamentalism on Wikipedia: longevity artices, was only banned for one year. Think about this: if I had been topic-banned for "only one" year, then the edits I am accused of doing would be perfectly fine.
  • Some of those who were in the Feb 2011 discussion thought that my indefinite topic ban would last less than a year. Even people who don't like me, such as DavidinDC, said as much. Thus, the real question is whether the "indefinite" ban is being abused at Wikipedia as an excuse to do nothing. Fair is fair; unfair is unfair. After 1+ year of being "topic-banned," I repeatedly requested a discussion about lifting the topic ban. There was no response, either positive or negative. "Indefinitely" does NOT mean "forever". Clearly, it was unfair to me for admins at Wikipedia to not have a discussion when one was so requested.
  • It was also unfair to be banned, again, without a discussion or even a warning. Talk page comments from non-admins do not constitute a "warning".
  • I have made over 13,000 edits to Wikipedia, and have contributed to areas such as botany, tennis, geographic small towns, etc outside of "longevity". Such a ban hurts Wikipedia.
  • I have two Master's degrees and have won awards for my work outside Wikipedia. The problem is not me. I am not causing a problem here, therefore I should not be banned. Again, as I mentioned: most agreed with the edits made...CP did not reverse the edits that IP 69.515 made. So, what's the issue here?
Sincerely, Robert Young

Decline reason:

You were violating your topic ban, this is not in question. The rest of it matters little, and your argument is baseless, the topic ban IS in place, and you are obligated to follow it, not sock. Unblock declined, and this should be considered a checkuserblock a this point. Attacking another user will also never succeed as a block appeal. Courcelles 17:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

Comment to Courcelles:
Once again, Wikipedia shows the failings of humans, who rule with emotion, not logic. My argument was not "baseless" (that is an opinion). You did not address the issues I raised. I will be requesting a second review from someone else.Ryoung122 18:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Ryoung122 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

There is no valid reason for Wikipedia user Ryoung122 to be blocked. I am appealing the "block" based on two grounds:

1. User Ryoung122 did not violate the terms of the "topic ban", therefore user Ryoung122 should not be blocked.

2. If User 69.15.219.71 violated terms of a topic ban, and was thus blocked, that was taken care of with a block of user 69.15.219.71. To block Ryoung122 is to be mis-applying punishment to a user who did not violate the rules. Thus, I ask for reinstatement of editing privileges for user Ryoung122.

Decline reason:

Nonsense. The topic ban is against you, regardless of whether you are editing as Ryoung122 or as an IP address. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

Thanks for the vacation, everyone! I can certainly find more uses of my time than donating it here. With just one update on the GRG or GWR website, Wikipedes will make the updates that need to be made, whether I donate my time here personally or not.
Jgordon, no need to say "nonsense". The argument I made was a good one, and your comment shows that, once again, Wikipedia is "policed" by people who act in a way that is not cordial. Robots without emotion, run by logic, would be preferable.
Have a nice day.
Ryoung122 21:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
You too. And perhaps, you can, in the future, figure out a better way for us to say, "You're obviously and unambiguously lying"; it's really kinda hard to be cordial when faced with falsity. Robots incapable of lying would be preferable. --jpgordon::==( o ) 01:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Not admitting guilt is not the same as "lying".Ryoung122 01:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It is when one is, in fact, guilty. Despite Ryoung122's plaints above that his inquiries were ignored re lifting his topic ban, he in fact received extensive and (given his history[1]) amazingly encouraging guidance [2] on how he might constructively approach that issue. He made use of that advice by doing... nothing -- except to continue knowingly violating his topic ban [3], just as he had been violating his topic ban before, and even during, the discussion just linked. I feel the record should to reflect all this since Ryoung122's comments above suggest that he plans to continue disrupting WP through meatpuppets [4] and it's best that people know with what they're dealing from the moment trouble starts again. EEng (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking over my contributions to this talk page, I see I offered Ryoung122 some helpful advice multiple times, including suggesting going to WP:AE to get his topic ban lifted. Was this ever done? Just curious. It would have been a more fruitful avenue than trying to circumvent the ban. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
No, I don't think he did. I'm pretty sure that I told him to file an appeal as well, but he didn't. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment Since there are those who feel the need to salt the Earth a little more, I must respond appropriately to misconceptions.
  • First off: EEng, again, I state, I do NOT plan to "disrupt" Wikipedia. I was referring to the fact that if I decide to make changes to reliable sources that Wikipedia tends to mirror, those changes tend to happen on Wikipedia, whether I edit there or not. I don't need to "edit through Wikipedia" in order to get the changes made that should be made. In fact, this has been a learning experience for me that has been most-useful: using the appropriate behind-the-scenes machinations to effect the outcome I want does NOT mean that I need to "send meatpuppets to Wikipedia". I can make those changes through (oh wait, I'm not allowed to talk about that subject...moving on).
  • Second, taking the fifth is not "lying". Your comment and those of others concerning that issue border on personal attack, and is irrelevant to the discussion. My moral value is secure in that area.
  • Third...I have tried to work constructively to have the Feb 2011 topic ban either lifted or changed from "indefinite" to a time frame, but I got no response for several months from anyone.
  • Fourth...my edits using the Ryoung122 respected the topic ban applied to Ryoung122.
  • Fifth, if you check the record of user 69.515whatever, you'll see that the account use was only occasional and generally not in regard to large controversies.
  • Sixth...you may recall that, in fact, the last dispute involved JJBulten pushing religious fundamentalist viewpoints on what were intended to be articles written from a scientific viewpoint. It appears that last "edit war" has NOT re-ignited, and was "over" more than a year ago. In short, I don't foresee any major issues even if my topic ban were lifted. I was serving "defense," not pushing POV editing.
  • Seventh, I note that the edit user 69.515 made was not even reverted by CanadianPaul...because the issue for CanadianPaul was not the content of the edit but who might have been making the edit. That goes against the Wikipedia policy guidelines that blocks are "not to punish" but to protect Wikipedia. If the edit made was not a problem, then how was a a ban or block protecting Wikipedia? Clearly, it wasn't. Furthermore, I find it patently unfair that the most recent block/ban came without hearing from my side of the story first, and the punishment seems disproportionate to the alleged "offense". I could serve less time being arrested in real life for possesion of a controlled substance (not that that has happened, as in reality my rap sheet is clean...not a day in real-life jail). Finally, I am well-aware of Wikipedia's "whack-a-mole" strategy of admin enforcement:
http://www.groundreport.com/Opinion/Wikipedia-Examines-its-Dispute-Resolution-Process-/2948088
The solution for many seems to be the speed of the result, rather than considering what is a fair result to all parties involved.
Have a nice evening.
Ryoung122 00:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
What's sad, EEng, is your continued "cabalism". I attempted to request an unblock in Oct 2011, but you sabotaged that effort.
Also, we have clear evidence from your own editing of you picking/choosing the same usual suspects...you made comments on the talk pages of DavidinDC, CanadianPaul, and Blade of Northern Lights. This fits in with my description of Wikipedia as akin to a "World of Warcraft" virtual reality video game, where one builds alliances, obtains social credits, and plans attacks on perceived "enemies":
02:04, 16 September 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+224)‎ . . User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights ‎ (→‎:(: Never mind)
02:02, 16 September 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+222)‎ . . User talk:David in DC ‎ (→‎Like a bad penny...: Never mind) (top)
01:56, 16 September 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+289)‎ . . User talk:David in DC ‎ (→‎Ryoung122 Talk Page: thoughts?)
01:40, 16 September 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+1,388)‎ . . User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights ‎ (→‎:(: ?)
23:43, 15 September 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+164)‎ . . User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights ‎ (→‎:(: new section)
23:41, 15 September 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+2,088)‎ . . Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ryoung122 ‎ (→‎Comments by other users: What do you call a medical imposter?)
Blade of Northern Lights, actually, has grown more amenable over the past two years, and DavidinDC has moved on. I don't see why you, EEng, are continuing to "beat a dead horse".
Some FACTS that you seem to be overlooking:
  • 1. Look at the past 1 1/2 years since the Feb 2011 "topic ban," and you'll see that my contributions to Wikipedia have been varied across many subjects, not too intense (WP:OWN issues), and stayed away from "longevity" COI issues.
  • 2. I consider my over 13,000+ edits across a myriad of fields to be a major contribution to Wikipedia, not a detriment.
  • 3. I have learned how Wikipedia is and to modify my behavior...however, Wikipedia continues to change and morph in its structure over time. Do you realize, EEng, that when Wikipedia was in its infancy, they actually recruited "experts" to write articles on subjects, much like Citizendium does now? Certainly, the early influence of Larry Sanger has died out over time, as Wikipedia focused instead on building feudal fiefdoms of editorial power and admin control, which is clearly evident from the above examples. Justice in pure form is blind and does not cater to past whims. Jury pools are supposed to be of peers who do not have a COI, yet we see you bring the latest "Wiki-storm" on my talk page to the attention of editors who may have had a personal bias on the subject in the past.
  • 4. The two main issues that I have been involved with in the (oh wait, I can't talk about that...).
The bottom line is this: I'm being punished for what happened long ago, mostly...an "indefinite block" is way disproportionate punishment to the edits I have made recently, which in fact did not seem to cause trouble. The problem seemed to be that "old foes" wanted to pile on from what happened in the past. Yes, I am the victim here, as is Wikipedia.
Never mind.
Ryoung122 01:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I should not have said that you plan to disrupt Wikipedia; I should have said that you plan to do things whose effect will be to disrupt Wikipedia. And this, in all sincerity, is root cause of Wikipedia's inability to make use of your potential contributions, valuable though those may be in the abstract: good intentions can mitigate bad effects, but only where there's hope that the doer can recognize why his behavior is unacceptable and so improve that behavior. Once that hope is exhausted, intentions don't matter anymore -- only effects.

After all these years you still seem not to comprehend that it doesn't matter how noble you think your cause to be, or how correct you are certain your views to be, you must still obey the rules. And while there's lots of debate all over the place about exactly what the rules mean and how they should be applied, once Arbcom rules on how they apply to you, you absolutely, positively have to abide by that ruling. By evading your topic ban -- and not only that, continuing to deny that you did so, even while insisting that it was OK for you to do it! -- you've shown that you don't understand even that.

Since the constructive effects of your presence here are decisively outweighed by the destructive ones, and since by rejecting the idea that what you've done is wrong you remove the possibility that your behavior will ever improve, it no longer matters (I repeat) what your intention is in being here, but only what the effect is of your being here. You've thereby worn out Wikipedia's resevoir of hope for you, and that is why you have have been indefinitely blocked -- not because of what others have done, but because of what you have done.

As much as you piss me off, I know this must feel awful. You will find other outlets for your talents, and this too will pass. Good luck to you.

EEng (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


RY, I've only just now seen your email to me (via WP's "Email this user"). I hope you understand from the closing of my message above that I do -- I really do -- regret the pass to which things have come, but you need to understand that this is because of what you have done, not anyone else. CanadianPaul may have filed the SPI, and I supplied additional evidence, but it was only a matter of time before someone else would have done it, and the outcome would have been exactly the same.

You wrote to me, "The Ryoung122 editor identity has stayed away from edits on 'longevity'-related material." Actually that's not true -- you slipped up a few times and did edit longevity-related stuff while logged in as Ryoung122. And you see, even if "Ryoung122" the account were clean, R.Y. the person was not. Arbcom may have said the "Ryoung122 is topic banned" but surely you understand that the meaning is "The person behind the account Ryoung122 is topic banned" -- we all know who you are in real life (you've chosen to reveal it many times) but in general no one has any way of referring to the various inmates in the Wikipedia asylum other than by their account-name avatars. You personally were to stay away from longevity, and you didn't. There's no getting around that.

The train has come to the end of the line, and you have to get off now. I really am sorry. Please, think over what I've said here for at least 48 hours before posting again. And please remove the wikibreak template from your Talkpage. You're not on a break -- you're indefinitely blocked and there's no use pretending otherwise. Go with grace.

EEng (talk) 11:53 pm, 18 September 2012, Tuesday (15 days ago) (UTC−4)



  • "my edits using the Ryoung122 respected the topic ban applied to Ryoung122." This has been explained plenty here, topic bans apply to the person not an account. There is no legitimate way you can continue to misunderstand what you did. Since you're doing nothing but intentionally making false arguments and continuing old squabbles, I've removed your ability to edit this page. Courcelles 04:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Indefinite Block Counter[edit]

It has been 765 days since Ryoung122's most recent indefinite block was instituted.

How long is "indefinite"? is the question.Ryoung122 18:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It's up to you. Wikipidia has rules - regardless of whether you personally agree with them or not - that must be followed. If you can demonstrate that you're willing to abide by the rules, then an admin might be inclinded to unblock you. But that's a big 'if'. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Just a small favor, could you make an "automatic block-day counter" that automatically updates the day count once a day? I'm not sure if some understand, but the block at the moment actually feels like a vacation.

Thanks!!!Ryoung122 19:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

{{Age in days}} would probably be what you're looking for. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Request on behalf of Ryoung122 about vandalism; other comments by CalvinTy[edit]

I'm CalvinTy. First, let me put any COI concerns aside: Ryoung122 is a colleague of mine at Gerontology Research Group (GRG). That's one of the reasons why I have not had any time for Wikipedia since summer 2011; been quite busy myself (both with GRG, which is my volunteer job, and my actual day job as a network administrator). I learned about the ArbCom thing back in early 2011 after it had taken place so I was not involved with that at all. Of course, some people tried to drag everyone involved with longevity (my field of interest) so that's when I vehemently defended myself and knew that I was best suited to just offer ideas for consensus or resolution. I have worked with some of the administrators such as A Quest for Knowledge, The Blade of the Northern Lights, SirFozzie among others (I think they are still admins, LOL). I have been told, online and offline, that I have the knack of being neutral and being a mediator as needed.

With that said, let me mention my reason for my presence at this time. Second, Ryoung122 asked me to see why and who apparently vandalized his talk page with this diff. I see that IP editor 68.230.178.54 has never made any other edits before except to solely edit Ryoung122's talk page about the so-called wikibreak. Normally, I would simply rollback and mark that as vandalism (particularly that it's on a user's own talk page) but thought I'd bring this into light here. I had not seen Ryoung122's talk page in ages, so I am not going to comment on his behavior here as I can understand both sides; that is not why I'm here (originally). I see that an administrator, Courcelles, have blocked Ryoung122 from even editing this talk page on September 22, 2012. At least, it would stand to reason that nearly two months have elapsed and that a Wikipedia editor (not outright banned -- only topic-banned) should be able to comment in his own talk page. Ryoung122 has not asked me to request that to be lifted, but to me, that's a logical next move. Can that be done?

Third, related to the 'vandalism', I show that IP editor 68.230.178.54's ISP is Cox Communications in the DC Metro area and geographically located in Annandale, Virginia (pretty close to where I live). That editor seem to mirror exactly what EEng had said on the same day, November 2, 2012. EEng had edited Ryoung122's user page out-of-blue after several weeks of inactivity on the user page, apparently. His edit summary explained his fair rationale, but apparently had an opposite effect, for several hours later, someone (without jumping into conclusions on who it can be) then edited Ryoung122's talk page regarding the wiki-break comment made by EEng on September 18, 2012 here. From my neutral standpoint, I'm uncertain why either EEng or the IP editor had to make an edit on November 2nd when this had died down after the administrator (Coucelles)'s edit on September 22nd.

Fourth, in general, it looks like, no matter what, people would expect the worst from Ryoung122 as EEng aptly stated: "good intentions can mitigate bad effects, but only where there's hope that the doer can recognize why his behavior is unacceptable and so improve that behavior. Once that hope is exhausted, intentions don't matter anymore -- only effects." In short, EEng has decided that "there is absolutely no hope for Ryoung122" because EEng has decided that Ryoung122 has exhausted all hope and should never be allowed to edit on Wikipedia again (paraphrasing EEng, mind you). That's a really very strong statement from a non-administrator (I don't think EEng is an administrator, is he? Although I have seen that username for ages). I fear that EEng may have an agenda and/or would never be impartial when it comes to Ryoung122. I forget the exact link to find out someone's rights but not important right now. However, forgive me, EEng, but I request an administrator to check to see if the IP editor 68.230.178.54 is somehow associated with EEng and/or any other person in the DC area (such as a former dissident, "DavidinDC"). I'm sure I should be doing this process somewhere like uhhh ANI or whatever the correct process is -- but perhaps not necessary if an administrator can read what I said & do a 'simple check' nonetheless.

As always, I'm a chatterbox but will close now with this: I don't know what is the best resolution for Ryoung122's "indefinite topic-ban" as both sides have made valid points -- I only see one flaw about when someone comments something like "if you can demonstrate that you have learned from the topic-ban...", I find that to be a Catch-22 comment. If the person cannot edit in his field of interest, such as longevity, how can the person demonstrate the ability to show to the administrators and/or ArbCom that he should be allowed to edit again in that field? Editing in other field of interest would help, but then the administrators would point out that they don't know what will happen once the ban is lifted and they would not rely on contributions in other topics to influence their decision-making process now, would they? Instead, if someone requests a topic ban to be lifted after a reasonable amount of time, that should take serious consideration and should be allowed to happen. I'm an administrator at several online forums and I usually advocate allowing banned members to return -- my rationale is this: "I'm giving them a CHANCE despite the perception the member may have given to date -- because once that person slips up again big time, there's no turning back for real." In short, I'm suggesting Ryoung122 to be lifted from his indefinite topic-ban. If he continues to be combative or not following policies/guidelines, then the administrators here have more ammo to use against Ryoung122. Right now, neither side have any ammo because it's a stalemate -- no true activity to demonstrate improvement (for Ryoung122) / evaluate behavior (by administrators/ArbCom). That's just my personal opinion in this matter. Cheers, CalvinTy 06:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I have known Robert Young since 2007 and he is an expert and brilliant genius when it comes to Supercentenarians. He has met many Supercentenarians and know there facts. Researching supercentenarians can be like a full-time job with difficult challenges along the way, I know I've done it since I was 12 years old. Robert Young knows facts from fiction when it comes to those things like supercentenarians and he has known Calvin Ty and Dr. Coles for years. I just don't know why this brilliant man is blocked from wikipedia. This is not my website no I cannot say anything but I think he knows his stuff. One thing I do know is that Robert Young would never vandalize anything in his life or even sockpuppet. Kegejoeco (aka Plyjacks) (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ryoung122, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Randykitty (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Appealing a topic-ban & unblocking your talk page[edit]

Robert (the real "ryoung122"),

As you know by now, there have been an impersonation of you in a recent SPI investigation (see above section). To begin, for benefit of any administrators who may read this, they need to know that we know each other in real life and that I'm only here to guide you in being able to respond to any SPI, or being able to use your talk page again, and/or to request a lift of your current topic-ban (in longevity areas only as originally intended by ArbCom).

First, I see that administrator "Courcelles" prevented you from editing your talk page on 22 September 2012 because Courcelles stated: "This has been explained plenty here, topic bans apply to the person not an account. There is no legitimate way you can continue to misunderstand what you did. Since you're doing nothing but intentionally making false arguments and continuing old squabbles, I've removed your ability to edit this page. Courcelles 04:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)"

Second, I see that I had made a plea in November 2012 in where nobody responded to, particularly to the comments in where I said, "I don't know what is the best resolution for Ryoung122's "indefinite topic-ban" as both sides have made valid points -- I only see one flaw about when someone comments something like "if you can demonstrate that you have learned from the topic-ban...", I find that to be a Catch-22 comment. If the person cannot edit in his field of interest, such as longevity, how can the person demonstrate the ability to show to the administrators and/or ArbCom that he should be allowed to edit again in that field? Editing in other field of interest would help, but then the administrators would point out that they don't know what will happen once the ban is lifted and they would not rely on contributions in other topics to influence their decision-making process now, would they?"

I also stated, "Instead, if someone requests a topic ban to be lifted after a reasonable amount of time, that should take serious consideration and should be allowed to happen. I'm an administrator at several online forums and I usually advocate allowing banned members to return -- my rationale is this: "I'm giving them a CHANCE despite the perception the member may have given to date -- because once that person slips up again big time, there's no turning back for real." In short, I'm suggesting Ryoung122 to be lifted from his indefinite topic-ban. If he continues to be combative or not following policies/guidelines, then the administrators here have more ammo to use against Ryoung122. Right now, neither side have any ammo because it's a stalemate -- no true activity to demonstrate improvement (for Ryoung122) / evaluate behavior (by administrators/ArbCom). That's just my personal opinion in this matter."

Third, since more than a year has passed, I thought I'd just guide you, "ryoung122", in following the guidelines in appealing a topic-ban (or at least getting you to be able to edit your talk page so administrators can monitor your new activity).

  • Go to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks. In particular, note this: "that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead;"
  • Also, since you were framed for the most recent SPI as well as several others in the past, you should comment on this because you were not allowed the ability to respond to this SPI: "that your conduct (under any account or IP address) is not connected in any way with the block (this can happen if a block is aimed at resolving a separate situation and you are unintentionally blocked as a result because you use the same IP range)"
  • A reminder about this: "In complicated situations, the reviewing administrator may not want to spend a long time reading your whole talk page and all of your contributions. Information and evidence not in your unblock request may not be read."
  • This is what apparently happened to you in September 2012: "If you make repeated invalid or offensive unblock requests, your talk page access may be revoked which makes it even more difficult to request unblocking."

Fourth, I want to mention a few tips that is mentioned in point #3 above.

Fifth, if you do all of the above, that should guide you in having your topic-ban lifted.

In the meantime, I'll see where the appropriate place is to allow you to be able to edit your talk page at least. Administrators, if you happen to see this, can you consider this request for Robert Young "ryoung122" the ability to at least be able to edit his own talk page here? Cheers, CalvinTy 15:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)