User talk:Wiki-Pharaoh

ANI notification
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Wikiproject Fun comment templates
Wikipedia:Wikiproject Fun comment templates, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiproject Fun comment templates and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Wikiproject Fun comment templates during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. &#8209; Iridescent 20:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Indefinite block
You have been blocked indefinitely because you were found to not be here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Most of your contributions did not contribute positively to the mainspace, instead there were essays often lacking in coherence and purpose. Wikipedia is not a social experiment nor can it be allowed to be placed under the whim of various 'research projects.' We are all here because we care about knowledge, knowledge being freely available, and because of that we try to keep things simple and to the point. But our time, here on Wikipedia and on earth, is precious. And you have taken enough of it. Provocations, however subtle, are not welcomed nor tolerated. El_C 21:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Block appeal
For the convenience of reviewing admins: the discussion that led to this block. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I would like to further expand on some issues raised earlier and refer to policy to articulate my points., an administrator, checkuser and oversight is entrusted with the privacy of users yet he has demonstrated a clear disregard for No personal attacks and specifically the introductory statement “comment on content and not on the contributor.” He has further disregarded the policy Libel by communicating libellous material in his edit summaries. For example, at 01:21, 17 March 2017 Beeblebrox removed the content on my homepage with an edit summary reading “I don’t think anyone believes one word of these claims of doing legit (legitimate) research.” I am conducting research for BREATHEFRESH LIMITED (United Kingdom) which is a company that specialises in Research and experimental development on biotechnology (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10383019.) I would be happy to provide evidence of further credentials to the Wikimedia foundation should my name not be believed, Furthermore, his edit summaries at 21:01, 16 March 2017 read “dear lord, what a load of crap” in response to my edits which is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL. This user’s behaviour clearly demonstrates that he has it “out” for me and should never have been involved with me as his only intention seems to cause me distress. The behaviour of other editors in this matter are similarly contentious of Wikipedia’s policies if not more however, I will have to elaborate further at a later time and date because I have other things to deal with.  → (talk to me!) (contributions) 02:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You had 14 administrators support either a topic ban or overall block, and from what I can tell only about half of them had ever interacted with you before the ANI was started. Even if Beeblebrox was out to get you, do you seriously think that a half-dozen uninvolved admin who reviewed the case are also out to get you? The ANI had nothing to do with your research, but with the borderline-TENDITIOUS creation of proposals, and everyone was in agreement. You say that you're active in the anti-vandal scene, and I won't deny that you've done good work there, but the vast majority of what you've done has been in the WP space. You were asked (multiple times, by multiple editors) to spend more time in the article space, and instead you decided to ignore them. I'm willing to assume good faith that you would continue your anti-vandal work if you were unblocked, but the act of running off to tattle to mommy makes me less inclined to endorse an unblock. Primefac (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As a minor note, even if in the unlikely circumstance that you manage to find a sympathetic admin, the topic ban of editing in the Wikipedia space (with, I would assume, the exception to AFDs) would still very much be in place. You'd still be able to do your anti-vandal work and edit articles, but wouldn't be able to make or suggest new guidelines. Primefac (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

As the blocking admin, I've never met or heard about you before today, but I've seen enough to tell that your contributions to the projectspace had not been constructive. I found your deleted No religion especially disconcerting. Even its more benign parts are problematic: calling someone an idiot for making an attempt to fix a toaster with a dildo—Really? You thought that belonged on the projectspace? In the end, it just took time to handle all of that, as it is taking time to handle this. But what benefit does the encyclopedia see from any of this? The true tyranny here is the tyranny of time, which we never have enough of. El_C 03:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * He did some marvelous mainspace contributions, including recently. He did mention trying to contribute to, which were reverted. He did discuss the content changes under the former name "Olowe2011" in 2015, especially at Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive 1 and Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive 3. Here are his past contributions on the article. I hate to see him go just because of his failed proposals, supposed research on Wikipedia, and claims of paid editing on Wikipedia. I'm not sure whether I'll accept what is done here. I remember my first block in 2011, but that was... wayyy different from this case. Also, I wasn't and never have been a paid editor. Maybe he can counter the paid editing claims against him. Otherwise, if he admits his faults, remorse for his actions, and wants to re-contribute to Wikipedia after six months from now, so we can give him welcome arms. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The more details about this alleged research I see, the less sense it makes. According to the site linked to, this user is a 23 year-old lawyer who since December has been the director of a pharmaceutical and biotechnology firm that (according to their repeated claims on-wiki) for some reason is conducting research that consists of submitting numerous essays and policy proposals on Wikipedia? And you're surprised that others are expressing disbelief? Beeblebrox (talk) 04:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * That is a government ran website they tend to be rather reliable. I do not understand why you are so fascinated by the research issue because it is really irrelevant. What is relevant is that the edits I have made on the project are judged objectively, impartially and without bias. I have no problem notifying of "paid editing" if so required. Moreover, I am not "the director" there are a number of them. I think you have treated me very unfairly and to be honest I am not entirely sure why you keep posting onto my talk page to engage with me given that you seem to be in the habit of defaming me in edit summaries. Your focus is really disproportionately on me rather than the content I produce. It is a valid issue that some of the old content I made might have been in bad taste but I am not sure what that has to do with anything now. Conclusively, my research is not supposed to interfere with anything and it clearly has, this was a completely unforeseen and unintended affect. The only thing I can do is apologize for the inconvenience and assure that it will not happen again so far as I can control. Wikipedia presents an extraordinarily unique research opportunity but is also a good place to revert vandals from time to time. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 04:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Your the one who keeps bringing up your alleged research. I don't doubt that the organization exists, what is hard to fathom is what Wikipedia policies could possibly have to do with pharma/biotech research. It's just not believable and calls into question whether you are being honest about anything you say here. That being said, despite what you have repeatedly implied about other Wikipedia ausers, I actually don't have unlimited time to spend dealing with you and am happy to leave it other to other admins to handle your case from here on out. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * . Now I would very much appreciate that you remove any untrue claims you have written about me which could damage my reputation. Furthermore, the company actually funds other research projects usually related to technology. I would elaborate extensively on the actual research itself however, there would be a risk of introducing subject (participant) and sociability bias. After the study is concluded and written up I will be happy to give you a copy. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 05:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure what that is supposed to prove, but it seems like a pretty poor idea to go posting your ID on a file sharing website, just so you know. For someone who is criticizing me for being too focused on  them seem to be trying to get my attention an awful lot, you can stop pinging me anytime now and that'd be just fine. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

--UTRSBot (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)