User talk:Ryoung122

Luka Magnotta

I shan't revert further on the article, as I don't want to be seen as not assuming good faith, and I don't want to edit war over a topic that is only of passing interest to me =) But I am of the opinion that a good deal of the speculation and hearsay in the article is in violation of BLP. The line about his websites, for example, may be speculation by a reliable source, but it is still speculation. I find it amusing to read following as it does a quote from Magnotta complaining that hoax websites in his name are being set up. Anyway, I've said my piece, and I certainly don't want to start falling out with people over some canadian nutjob. Perhaps if nothing else I have highlighted that people need to think hard about BLP before adding every little bit of news the media drip feeds out. Have a nice day, Ryoung =) GwenChan 16:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, while I understand your argument about some of the potential issues raised by the case, at this point it seems like many of them have yet to reach the point where we could honestly write about them without violating Wikipedia's proscriptions against original research. If you've got actual sources to demonstrate that the issues in question are actually being discussed in conjunction with the case, then by all means bring 'em on — but so far it seems to me like you might be brainstorming possible issues that might be addressed by criminology researchers in the future rather than ones that are actually already being discussed in the media (or at least the media I've seen so far).

It's also worth noting that internet notoriety isn't at all the same thing as real world notability; he may have already been an infamous figure in certain niches of the interwebz for several years, but until just a few days ago he had never garnered anything like the necessary volume of reliable source coverage in real world media that would make him notable enough for our purposes here. (Note that even the cat videos and the Homolka thing are sourced almost exclusively to media coverage that's been generated in the past three days, and not to anything that would suggest that he garnered any substantial volume of media attention for them at the time.) You're certainly free to have an opinion on whether the media and/or the police dropped a ball they should have caught sooner than they did — but without coverage in reliable real world sources, it certainly wasn't Wikipedia's responsibility to beat them to the punch. Which is why he is still a WP:BLP1E at the present time — the murder allegation is the only thing, to date, that would make him somebody who might actually belong in a real encyclopedia, rather than just a directory of "weird bits of internet culture". Bearcat (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, I think there are several issues to consider here. IN regards to "potential issues," my point was that at the AFD we need to wait as this story appears to have "legs". We already seeing some social-article results, such as

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Luka+Rocco+Magnotta+again+warns+psychiatrist+examined+Paul+Bernardo/6716283/story.html

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/31/magnotta-a-ticking-time-bomb-relative

It may be that I have a good sense of what the media is going to do next, but they are covering some of my hypothetical angles already.

In regards to the second issue, media coverage prior to the most-recent "events" in the past week: while, true, I never heard of this man before a few days ago, it's also true that a Google Images search of "Luka Rocco Magnotta" prior to this week's story cycle returned quite a bit of hits...kitten-killer, pornstar, male model, Homolka rumors. Whether "engineered" by Magnotta or not...and most likely he has planned this out...this case is extremely unusual and has impact factors on social culture. For example:

"Dr. Bradford explained that..it's unlikely that the suspect is mentally ill or psychotic. 'Most people with (a) serious mental disorder don't do these types of things.' He also said the thought processes of the mentally ill are usually too disordered to carry out such a deliberate publicity campaign.

Sexual crimes are frequently recorded on video, Bradford said, but rarely murders. Even those who commit sexually-sadistic homicides (such as Bernardo and Homolka) tend to record only the sex because it is erotic to them.

"It sounds as though the purpose of the video was the homicide itself. It seems planned. He had a video camera set up and does the killing on the video. You have to ask yourself what is the motivation for that. It doesn't sound to be sexual. Is he extremely psychopathic and he wanted to bring himself into a position of tremendous notoriety, to become infamous as a Canadian homicide perpetrator? People with extreme psychopathology would do these sorts of things," he said. "That is my gut feeling."

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Video+Luka+Rocco+Magnotta+again+warns+psychiatrist+examined+Paul+Bernardo/6716283/story.html#ixzz1wa3WbJVi

So, we have a deliberate-publicity-campaign killer who, very unusually, films the actual murder and uses this to "terrorize" political party offices, in order to achieve "attention".

We have, in fact, "waves" of media coverage.

1. Human body parts mailed to Canadian political parties 2. The human body parts connected to a murder in Toronto 3. A search for the suspect (Interpol)

After the immediate coverage, we are having "follow-up" stories, examining the social issues. There is talk of Magnotta growing up in a broken home without parental supervision. The bottom line is that in a case like this, there were "warning signs" of impending trouble years in advance. As sick as the crimes committed were, that it took years to build up the psychopathy needed to commit them suggested there was a chance for intervention, had the "red flags" been heeded.

That, of course, raises secondary issues: why did the Canadian police ignore the kitten-killing videos? Why did they ignore the snuff film, which could have made it easier to catch the suspect right away? Botched police work will be yet another angle of this story. Of course, unless/until the suspect is captured, it's difficult to predict what will happen beyond the secondary-followup story angles. But expect to see another wave of coverage in magazines such as Time and Newsweek that will get deeper into the issues than just the fast-paced press.Ryoung122 21:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Saint George, Georgia

Hello, Ryoung. A while back, you left a large deposit on the talk page for Saint George, Georgia. I didn't see how it fit in with the purpose of a talk page, and I almost deleted the entire section. But then it occurred to me that perhaps you were using the talk page as an archive of material you intended to incorporate in the article at some point in the future. You will find the material here, if you would still plan to make use of it. 76.106.149.108 (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marinko Matosevic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Croatian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

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

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)

This 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).

Ryoung122 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

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, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while 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)

This 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).

Ryoung122 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

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, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while 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) 03:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)