Talk:Electronic harassment/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

March 2016 - problematic edits by new user

Regarding this series of edits: Wikipedia policy prohibits editors from adding their own opinions to articles, e.g. "Since decades ago, the alleged victims around the world claim their truthfulness, while mental health professionals address their expertise according to their technical knowledge often ending the debate in what looks as an embarrassing empasse" etc. Also, please read WP:FRINGE and WP:NOTNEUTRAL for a general explanation of why your edits have been reverted. If you are unclear about specific reasons for reversions, please discuss here rather than edit war - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty understanding what is going on here. As far as I can tell none of the involved editors are pushing the point of view that electronic harassment is real -- put perhaps I am missing subtleties. Could we have some discussion here of what each involved editor is trying to accomplish? But if nothing else, can people who are reverting at the very least specify what version they are reverting to? I have completely lost track of where this article has gone. Looie496 (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Electronic_harassment#Article_Structure is a good starting point to understand what the SPAs are trying to accomplish. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I saw much the same things as Looie. Both versions of the article seem to be at least implicitly accepting that this is not a real phenomenon. The longer version (pushed by the SPA) edges dangerously close to implying that it is real, from what I read, but that should be easily correctable. Since WP generally prefers longer articles to shorter ones, shouldn't we be trying to correct that version? I'm not advocating for it, mind. I'm asking for objections so as to better understand the position of those opposed to that version. I certainly don't want an article that doesn't make it clear that this is not at all real. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The SPAs have been pushing to restructure the article to separate the psychiatric view from the delusional claims, as if the claims deserve to stand on their own as equally credible to the consensus of mental health professionals. Their version gives weight to the delusional claims via the sheer amount of material devoted to the claimants stories. Also problematic is a synthesis of "evidence" sympathetic to delusional claims, such as a selectively quoted working document supposedly representing the views of the European Parliament (which it explicitly does not), and citations to primary sources misrepresented as "Legislative interventions", as well as lavish coverage of "Incidents" used as a WP:SOAPBOX for detailed claims of electronic harassment. That said, if you'd like to work on a sandbox version that avoids these issues while adding more material from our reliable sources, feel free to have at it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I see what's happening here. I draw a distinction between a mental illness with delusions of being controlled or harassed by electronic signals, and the conspiracy theory that this is actually happening. That's why I didn't see the issue, because what the SPA was pushing as 'documentation' of the 'real' phenomenon, I was seeing as documentation of the conspiracy theory.

Still though, it looked to me like we could re-work that SPA version to make it clear it's talking about the conspiracy theory, don't you think? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any reliable sources that frame the topic as a conspiracy theory. Have you run across any? AFAIK, our best sources (the Post and the Times) frame the topic as claims by individuals who are convinced the government is personally targeting their minds using mysterious technological devices -- claims that psychiatry and mental health professionals view as delusional. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't think of any off the top of my head. It's a very common trope in conspiracy theories, though. Hence the stereotype of wearing a tinfoil hat. I'm sure there are some. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Try "Tinfoil hat". If it has none, and you find some, please add there too. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not framed as a conspiracy theory, I agree. It is framed as an unknown phenomena. They don't offer much analysis or opinion, they mainly describe the victims view and the psychiatric view. We don't have a definition of EH so we might be talking about different things. Some say it's real some say it's not but what is it? Roger Tolce's definition is wide. It includes using any electronic device to harm another person. So bugging is EH, a hidden camera in the shower is EH. Nobody is going to say that these sorts of incidents are not real, are they? I saw in a tech toys shop the other day a remote microphone that boasts that it allows for listening to a conversation 100m away. That is EH. All such incidents that are included in EH have to involve some assailant, usually unknown. That is not a conspiracy theory until we start speculating about who is doing it. TIs do have conspiracy theories and those are well enough described in the sources, and should be included I think. That doesn't mean that the article supports any particular conspiracy theory.Jed Stuart (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

It is framed as mental illness. This is abundantly clear from our reliable sources. After some digging, some additional sources about "TI's" were found here, and here. (And Staszek Lem and MjolnirPants were correct, at least one of these sources refers to the "TI's" beliefs as a "conspiracy theory")- LuckyLouie (talk) 11:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I am getting your second link "dspace.smith.edu cannot be reached". The only bit of opinion that I can find in the Washington Post article says:

"But, given the history of America's clandestine research, it's reasonable to assume that if the defense establishment could develop mind-control or long-distance ray weapons, it almost certainly would. And, once developed, the possibility that they might be tested on innocent civilians could not be categorically dismissed."

They don't say anywhere that they think the TI claims are evidence of mental illness. They describe the psychiatric view that it is mental illness, which is a different thing. Jed Stuart (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User:Jed Stuart. Maybe we should have an WP:RFC, to get input from uninvolved editors over weather it is framed as a mental illness (so it should be mostly given weight to the fact the victims are severely mentally disturbed), as an unknown phenomena (so it should be given weight to all the perspectives: psychological diagnoses, claims, legislative interventions and violent incidents - just how I edited few days ago), or a conspiracy theory in its pejorative sense (so the lunatic tin foil hattery along with the mental health version would be the central point, with no concern for belittling all the rest). I think we can improve this article if only we wanted to, but I'm afraid some editors do not want that for some reason. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Before any RFC you have to analyze the sources and see what they say. Only if our discussion comes to unsolvable disagreement about the interpretation of the sources, or is the discussion turns into pure exchange of opinions, we can request wasting the time of uninvolved editors.

But first of all, please make a clean start in a new talk section and state clearly what change in the article are you suggesting, otherwise it will be an idle talk, since everybody will understand then problem in their own way. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Our discussion has already come to unsolvable disagreement, do you realize? The sources are there for everyone to analyze yet it looks as we are not able to reach a shared interpratation. Thus a requests for comment comes handy. Do you agree? About your question "what change in the article are you suggesting" that is exactly what I mean by not being able to reach a shared interpretation. To sum this all: we are not capable of understanding each other, yet we keep on asking questions as "what is it that you are suggesting?". Hilarious isn't it? That's why I think we need uninvolved editors. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Beautifulpeoplelikeyou: Sorry, I was probably not clear enough: I am not asking "what are you suggesting?". I was asking "state clearly what change in the article are you suggesting, i.e., what text in the article do you want to add or delete. And we shall discuss whether it will be an improvement. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@Beautifulpeoplelikeyou: We're not doing an RfC to ask if it's "an unknown phenomena[sic]" because it's not. There are no reliable sources claiming that this is really happening to people. Nor are we conflating this with Cyberbullying as that describes a real, documented phenomenon. Now, we could certainly link to cyberbullying, in a hat note and in the "see also" section, but we're not conflating the two. Honestly, it'd be fine by me if there were just two sections: "As a Conspiracy Theory" which documents conspiracy theories about the government controlling people via EM radiation and "As a Delusion" which documents the psychological treatment and condition of people who believe it is happening to them. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea why you mentioned Cyberbullying... what has cyberbullying to do with this? I never mentioned cyberbullying.

Also, I never mentioned the existence of reliable sources claiming it is really happening. All I'm doing is depicting the sources position which both convey the chance it could be happening, and the chance it could be a mental illness. This is why I support the label of "unknown phenomena" because indeed the insufficient information available negates us editors the chance of giving weight to neither the factuality of the harassment or the mental diagnoses. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you cite a single reliable source which states that it is possible that some entity is, in fact, mind controlling people using electromagnetic waves? If not, then we're not stating that it's possible in the article, and we're not asking outside editors to discuss whether we do so. That would be a clear violation of WP policy. This is -according to every reliable source- most certainly not a real phenomenon, so the suggestion that it may be has absolutely no place here. Also, I mentioned cyberbullying because I've seen the two subjects conflated by people pushing the view that this may be real. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you really think we are cops here running after some dark perpetrator? We are just editors trying to put together the picture given by the reliable sources. If you wanted to be a cop you should have enrolled into police academy, instead of signing for a wikipedia account. I wrote a detailed well rounded article on Electronic harassment a few days ago that took me hours of hardwork, thus I'm not going to uselessly repeat every single peace of information that points to the chance Electronic harassment may very well not be just a delusion. Indeed, in case you missed it, here follows my article.

Electronic harassment, or psychotronic torture, or electromagnetic torture describes either a conspiracy theory or an unusual mental illness, about either the unlawful use (most oftenly ascribed to rogue government officials and mafias) of exotic energy weapons to harass, torture, harm and forcedly alter a victim's behaviour unnoticed, or a condition of severe delusional belief systems and schizophrenia. Since decades ago, the alleged victims around the world claim their downrightness in regards to their disturbing symptoms being due to the attacks via energy weapons, while most mental health professionals address the claims as deludional according to their technical knowledge, often ending the debate in what looks as an embarrassing empasse. It's relevant to notice the "voices in the head" claimed by the victims and which mental health professionals cite as a confirmation of a mental illness do never "go away" with anti-psychotic drugs. == Internet communities and psychological diagnoses == There are extensive online support networks and numerous websites maintained by people fearing mind control. Psychologist Vaughan Bell, whose study was published in the journal Psychopathology, along with other mental health professionals, state that reports of ‘mind control experiences’ (MCEs) on self-published web pages are "highly likely to be influenced by delusional beliefs, although he also says it does not suggest all people participating in mind-control sites are delusional, and that a firm diagnosis of psychosis could only be done in person. Mental health professionals as Palm Springs psychiatrist Alan Drucker have identified evidence of auditory hallucinations, delusional disorders or other mental illnesses in online communities supporting those who claim to be targeted., and other psychologists are divided over whether such sites negatively reinforce mental troubles or act as a form of group cognitive therapy. == The claims == The claims mostly point fingers to declassified official documents of the infamous 1950s mind control projects such as Project MKUltra, to a pletora of public patents issued on the subject of electromagnetic devices capable of affecting the nervous system, and to unequivocal pieces of information referring to psychotronic wars, experiments and research, which allegedly prove their claims are real, not products of delusions. "Yet if you go to the police and say 'I'm hearing voices', they're going to lock you up for psychiatric evaluation". To be noted is that more than a few victims were put on anti-psychotic drugs without obtaining any benefits whatsoever: the voices did not stop. Another interesting piece of information is the following study conducted on behalf of the European Parliament in June 2000, titled "Crowd Control Technologies (An appraisal of technologies for political control)" "The most controversial 'non-lethal' crowd control and anti-materiel technology proposed by the US are so called Radio Frequency or Directed Energy Weapons that can allegedly manipulate human behaviour in a variety of unusual ways. Some microwave systems have been proposed which can raise body temperature to between 105 to 107 degrees F, to provide a disabling effect in a manner based on the microwave cooker principle. However, the greatest concern is with systems which can directly interact with the human nervous system. There are many reports on so called psychotronic weapons which are beyond the brief of this study but one comment can be made. The research undertaken todate both in the US and in Russia can be divided into two related areas: (i) individual mind control and (ii) crowd control. That the US has undertaken a variety of mind control programmes in the past such as MkULTRA and MkDELTA is a matter of public record and those using electromagnetic radiation such as PANDORA have been the focus of researchers in para-politics for many years. More recently, authors such as Begich and Roderick have alleged significant breakthroughs in the ability of military high frequency electromagnetic technologies to manipulate human behaviour." — Science and Technology Options Assessment, European Parliament Victims make use of exotic lexicon such as "voice to skull" (abbreviated as "V2K"), official military designation for the microwave auditory effect, denoting weapons that beam voices or sounds into the head, "Targeted Individuals" (abbreviated as "TIs") to describe themselves, 'gang stalking' to refer to the fact they believe they're being followed and harassment by strangers, neighbours or colleagues who work for the government. The alleged victims are aware that the idea of "being targeted by weapons that can invade their minds has become a cultural joke, shorthanded by the image of solitary lunatics wearing tinfoil hats to deflect invisible mind beams".. The alleged victims of Electronic harassment claim that schizophrenia-like voice hearing, severe psychologycal violence and pain all over their bodies are produced by Directed-energy weapons, and believe government is probing and controlling their minds with mind-control technology, along with other specific symptoms. A victim from California conducted interviews narrowing the symptoms down to several major areas: 'ringing in the ears', 'manipulation of body parts", 'hearing voices', 'piercing sensation on skin', 'sinus problems' and 'sexual attacks'.. in fact, many report the sensation of having their genitalia manipulated.. both male and female TIs report a variety of 'attacks' to their sexual organs, some in the form of sexual stimulation, including one TI who claims he dropped out of the seminary after constant sexual stimulation by directed-energy weapons". A TI in San Diego says many women among the TIs suffer from attacks to their sexual organs but are often embarrassed to talk about it with outsiders.. Thanks to the internet, people believing the government is beaming voices into their heads and living up with social isolation, "now have discovered hundreds, possibly thousands, of others just like them all over the world. Web sites dedicated to electronic harassment and gang stalking have popped up in India, China, Japan, South Korea, the United Kingdom, Russia and elsewhere. Victims begun to host support meetings in major cities, and prompt possible legal strategies for outlawing mind control". == Legislative interventions == Government representatives showed some support to the victims, with democratic Dennis Kucinich presenting a bill at the United States Congress advocating the outlaw of "weapons and weapon systems capable of inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person) using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations". Yet this bill was later dropped. Also republican Jim Guest stepped foward "calling for an investigation into the claims of those who say they are being tortured by mind control". In his own words: "I’ve had enough calls, some from credible people — professors — being targeted by nonlethal weapons", adding that nothing came of his request for a legislative investigation. He added: "I believe there are people who have been targeted by this. With this equipment, you have to test it on somebody to see if it works." == Incidents == In recent years there have been a number of violent incidents involving individuals arguing they believe they are tormented victims of electronic harassment. Government authorities have made official statements dismissing such beliefs as being due to mental issues and delusions in connection with the deadly incidents associated. A rescue swimmer in the Coast Guard before voices in his head sent him on a downward spiral, expressed the solace he found among fellow TIs in a long e-mail to another TI: "I think that the only people that can help are people going through the same thing. Everyone else will not believe you, or they are possibly involved." In the end, though, nothing could help him enough. In August 2006, he would commit suicide. The Washington Navy Yard shooting occurred on September 16, 2013, when lone gunman Aaron Alexis fatally shot twelve people and injured three others in a mass shooting at the headquarters of the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) inside the Washington Navy Yard in Southeast Washington, D.C.. The attack, which took place in the Navy Yard's Building 197, began around 8:20 a.m. EDT and ended when Alexis was killed by police around 9:20 a.m. EDT. After the Navy Yard shooting, the media speculated that Alexis had appeared to be suffering from mental illness. The media reported that Alexis had filed a police report in Rhode Island on August 2, 2013, in which he claimed to be the victim of harassment and that he was hearing voices in his head. According to an FBI official after the shooting, Alexis was under "the delusional belief that he was being controlled or influenced by extremely low frequency electromagnetic waves". A message later obtained by federal authorities from Alexis' personal computing devices said, "Ultra low frequency attack is what I've been subject to for the last 3 months. And to be perfectly honest, that is what has driven me to this" On August 4, 2013, naval police were called to Alexis' hotel at Naval Station Newport and found that he had "taken apart his bed, believing someone was hiding under it, and observed that Alexis had taped a microphone to the ceiling to record the voices of people that were following him". At the time of the incident, he was working for the contractor at the base. On November 20, 2014, a gunman, identified as 31-year-old Myron May, who graduated in 2005, shot an employee and two students at the Strozier Library at his university shortly after midnight. He was a lawyer and an alumnus of the university, who was obsessed with psychotronics conspiracy theories and believed that the U.S. government was responsible for his destabilized condition. He was fatally shot by prompting police officers counterfire in front of the library. After the shooting, it was revealed that May had mailed a total of ten packages to friends throughout the country beforehand in order to draw attention on the 'targeted individuals' issue. Before the attack, May shared on Facebook a Google search with the words “Targeted individuals” typed into the search box. He had also posted a video clip from the television show Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura with a man named Robert Duncan who claimed to have helped "put together the technology that allows the government to transmit thoughts and voices into the heads of Americans". May comments on that same post: "Is our government violating ordinary citizens' rights? Unfortunately, the answer is Yes! See inside this video.". "His social media activity revealed that he believed he was a 'targeted individual', the term used by people who think the government and shadowy gangs are attacking them with mind control and invisible, remote weapons.In a series of communications and phone calls, May told his friends he believed "stalkers" were harassing him from the government, and a "direct-energy weapon" was being used to hurt and torture him. He told to expect packages that would "expose" the conspiracy that tormented all 'targeted individuals'. Such packeges revealed a few properly written documents meant to be addressed at various authorities in a position to be of any help, plus a couple of hours of video footage of himself explaining his imminent tragic actions he decided to undertake. His video footage is now available on Youtube and elesewhere online. == See also == Psychotronics Directed-energy weapon Tin foil hat Microwave auditory effect The Corley Conspiracy, an opera based on alleged electronic harassment On the Origin of the 'Influencing Machine' in Schizophrenia Martha Mitchell effect == Notes ==

We're all free to disagree with each other, we know that. But I guess this time it's up to you to try recognize a common ground for discussion after giving a honest read at my version of the article, and then question me appropriately, instead of wearing the cop suit to inquire on "which entities could possibly be mind-controlling people via electromagnetic waves". To be honest though, I doubt anything good is gonna come out of this because I already spotted the pomposity and narrow-minded of the editors involved in this topic. This talkpage (and its archives) together with the editing history speak loads about the deplorable trend in custody of this topic since a few years. We need at least a WP:RfC to figure out what the basic structure of the article should be. I know you're now going to unappropriately bring in policies about fringe conspiracy theories (that's always your best and only shot, and by consulting the history of this article it looks as it always has been), but what can I do more than this? Maybe there's one last thing I can do to conclude this reply, and that is to quote a recent very honest, airtight, polite and crystal clear comment from the Psychotronics_(conspiracy_theory) talk page that I happened to read: Here it goes:

This article and all others related to claims of "targeting", "torture", and harassment" of individuals and groups by governments and/or corporations are written in manner suggesting that the author has researched the subject and is presenting the unassailable "truth", but the authors always leave out any subjects, books, aspects, studies, evidence and references that would allow people to fairly examine these claims. The volume of material left out that supports missing perspective is so egregious that it really looks like a deliberate "cover-up". For Instance, there are a plethora of psychotronic weapons that are currently known, publicly patented and widely used and known. Also , Senator Dennis Kucinich introduced a bill to outlaw use of such weapons of American citizenship without their consent. Why introduce a bill for non-existent wweapons? Look up "non-lethal" weaponry and some patents including Neurophone, microwave hearing devices, silent sound. There are many. If this info isn't introduced then I will assume the authors before are schills and Wikipedia is complicit in trying to shape public opinion and prevent the truth of the claims of people being affected by "psychotronics" from being acknowledged. After all, police in USA all have some of these weapons in their arsenal like the sound cannon that is so loud it puts people into shock and their brains 'short-circuit and they drop to the ground. Responses to this are appreciated but don't just respond to the one point that is vulnerable, answer all and look up what I.present. Also Look up Doctor Robert Duncan's book "deciphering the matrix". Thanks.

— Prosperbelong (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC), Talk:Psychotronics_(conspiracy_theory)

You all be well now. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@Beautifulpeoplelikeyou: Let me repeat again, now in bold: Please state clearly what change in the article you are suggesting, and we will discuss it. I explained why I demanded this, and the last exchange of the two of you clearly demonstrates my point. We can discuss generalities ad infinitum. Please suggest a specific change of the text. Otherwise you are wasting people's time and suggesting to waste more time of more people. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: I've read this comment at least a dozen times and I still can't imagine a form of logic which makes it anything but a handful of non-sequiturs assembled into a paragraph. I think you're right in that this user is wasting my time, but I'm pretty sure they're wasting yours, too. If they respond to your question by insisting that you asking it is evidence of an inability to work together, then I suggest that they're right, just not for the reasons they seem to think. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it works to make huge changes to the article all at once. Building it a little at a time would work better and getting the basic structure agreed on first and even what it is about also, not that I have a lot of experience at this. But, we have sources that are more about the claims of TIs than about EH, which is a much bigger subject including things that are definitely real, eg bugging & spying. Sure there are perpetrators and targets involved in such activities, but what TIs claim is something way more intensive and involves many other aspects. You can't say that the sources say that is not real either, when the Washington Post came to the conclusion: "But, given the history of America's clandestine research, it's reasonable to assume that if the defense establishment could develop mind-control or long-distance ray weapons, it almost certainly would. And, once developed, the possibility that they might be tested on innocent civilians could not be categorically dismissed." I suggest that we should start again with two articles - one for those who claim they are innocent TIs. The sources here and much of the debate would go there. And the other for EH, the more general phenomena, which no doubt has many sources not yet found. Who does not believe in the reality that in today's world it is easy to be bugged and spied upon by all sorts of unknown others? There must be heaps of RS info on all that. Who coined the term has to be on the agenda for that EH article? And what is it's definition. RFC seems a good idea to me too. Jed Stuart (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The statement you refer to is entirely conditional..."IF" the Defense Department COULD develop mind control...then (and only under those conditions) it would be reasonable to assume that "TI"s claims are plausible. You seem to have misinterpreted it to mean the WaPo concluded the claims are plausible or have some merit. Note that the article goes on to call the claims an "implausible notion", saying the "alleged victims" lack "even a single document that would buttress the implausible notion that the government is currently targeting a large group of American citizens with mind-control technology". - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I am responding to the view stated many times that the claims of TIs are "-according to every reliable source- most certainly not a real phenomena." What we can say from the WP article is "might be a real phenomena". They would not have said that if they thought that it was not a possibility.Jed Stuart (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Who cares about it being a conditional statement? If realiable sources took into account such a condition then we as editors just have to follow through reporting it, rather than reject the chance it could be real. We are not supposed to disclose any truth here either, we are just trying to write the encyclopedia, aren't we? "Doubt is part of knowledge" someone said once upon a time. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. We're not inserting claims not supported by reliable sources, and we're certainly not inserting original speculation based on speculative statements in our sources. I am telling both of you, Jed Stuart and Beautifulpeoplelikeyou, right now that none of the rest of us are open to inserting claim or speculation that this is really happening without you providing a bulletproof sources to support it. So if your only purpose is to push for the view that this is real then you are not welcome here. If you would like to actually help improve the article, then try to address some other aspect of it, like removing much of the jargon (the explanations at the top should be moved into the body, and their use elsewhere removed). Beautifulpeoplelikeyou, if you were to re-write that version to make it clear that this were a conspiracy theory/mental illness and not a real phenomenon, I would support your change. But given that you clearly believe this is actually happening, and you clearly want the article to reflect that, I'm not willing to endorse it, because I know it's just the first step of your turning this article into a credulous 'expose' article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems pointless to discuss this with you as you are not replying to any of my points. For example the point about bugs and cameras as part of EH. That is a real phenomena. are you going to say that people who have found that they have been bugged have some how created those physical objects through manifestation of a delusion?Jed Stuart (talk) 00:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

What are the sources about bugs and cameras? What text are suggesting to add to the article? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

How exactly do bugs and cameras affect the sort of mind control which is the 'feature' which distinguishes this from Electronic surveillance? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I feel as if I've dropped through a timewarp back to CompuServe and Mike Corley. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

We don't have any sources there yet about bugs and cameras, but surely there would be many RS on both. I will have a look for some good ones when I have time. I think we have to establish a definition of what we are meaning by EH. As I said before, the sources we have are mostly about the TI issue which seems to be not what EH is about in total. The TI claims are about lots of things EH being just one. Without a clear definition of what EH is about how can we discuss it? There may not be a RS definition of the term, which makes that more difficult. In my understanding of the popular definition of EH "electronic surveillance" would be just one aspect. Jed Stuart (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with MjolnirPants on this one. There's a disgraceful quid-pro-quo about the term "Electronic harassment": if you google it, the most results you get are about online harassment (cyberstalking, cyberbullying, pornography). This is defenately confusing if not a straightaway mistake to be corrected. The most influencial TIs advocacy group is called "Freedom from Covert Surveillance and Electronic Harassment", and also other groups of TIs use that expression but they all refer to exotic mind control energy weapons, not bugs nor cameras (you're rather talking about eavesdropping and electronic surveillance). The advocacy group has been cited all over our references and that's why the article is called "Electronic harassment". In my opinion this should be corrected some way, possibly by using the word "torture", calling it maybe "Electronic torture": note that the references clearly mention torture, and that the same advocacy group mentioning harassment in its name, campaigns postering big writings on streets stating that "Electronic harassment = Torture" (KMIR reference proves this). Or possibly "psychotronic harassment", or "psychotronic torture", or "electromagnetic torture", or even "electromagnetic mind control", yet adding in the lede it is broadly know as "Electronic harassment".

Thus I think I understand what you mean Jed Stuart (talk), but I believe you're too locked on the person of Roger Tolces who is yet to be cited in any of the references (reliable sources) at our disposal. It's true however, that Roger Tolces is involved with the term "Electronic harassment" and that, according to non-reliable sources, he appears to be an expert even on the TIs topic. I think in the end he could be used in the article if only the sources that cite him, could be defined reliable. If I remember correctly his having a say in the matter revolves around that american radio program called "Coast to Coast", which by wiki-standards is not yet considered reliable as it is based on awkward/fringe theories. And also his personal website I also believe it can hardly be considered a reliable source.

By the way, it doesn't really matter compared to the article's content issue which I'm trying to help solve (read last sections ofthis talk page), but does anyone agree on changing the title as I suggested to avoid misinterpretations? Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I am glad you see the need for re-thinking the most general levels of this mess of thinking. Another way would be to take the TI issue out of the EH article and most of the sources about that. A new article "Targeted Individuals" would be more appropriate for that. Claims of intensive EH would be just one part of that article. The EH article would then be about the much more general phenomena of use of electronic equipment to harm people etc. The TIs claims would just be a small mention in that article. I know I said that before but lets get any options on the table for making it more reflective of the actual situation.

Yes, we need a journalist to interview Roger Tolces, look at his views and work, and make an assessment of his view of EH. I have looked into it enough including emails with him to be convinced that he coined the term and popularized it. That may be able to be stated in the article without endorsing his definition of the term. It is just a fact that he did that in many interviews on Coast to Coast. The recordings are there to be listened to if you subscribe. It seems to also be a fact that TIs have adopted his definition of EH. So his definition is relevant even though there has been no RS investigation of all that. He is either identifying a real problem in society, or part of fueling a mass delusion and conspiracy theories. If editors here could be convinced, as I am, that it is all of those then we might start getting clearer on what to say on EH. At Roger Tolces he defines EH as including:

Electronic Surveillance. Electronic Sabotage/Interference (Jamming). Directed Harmful High Energy Devices .Voice/Data/Image induction. Microwave Carrier ULF-UHF Induction Method. Direct Contact Induction Method. Magnetic Pulse Induction Method. Radiation. Implants. Laser Harassment Devices. Personal tracking and recovery system. Jed Stuart (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm really not sure how to answer this. An article to be on wikipedia needs WP:RS, but I know no reliable sorces that cite Roger Tolces. I know he's involved with TIs at some degree but I'm not sure the exact degree. As long as it concerns me, it could be just pushing his electronic surveillance businness and at same time find himself in the TIs topic. What TIs claim, whether they're mentally ill or not, is something that relates to a sophisticated government conspiracy in the first place, rather than an electronic eavesdropping/surveillance issue. It looks like comparing a private little investigation agency invited to investigate on 9/11. It's true however that I don't know Roger Tolces, I just don't follow him. By the way, you may want to know that apparently a Targeted Individuals page was created a year ago and deleted more than once (this is what the logs say). It's not clear to me how you would structure the "Targeted Individuals" page and how you would relate it to "Electronic harassment", but I like the idea. Propose anything and I will give my humble impression. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The sources we have are mainly about the TIs claims and the counter claims from the psychiatric community. So we are already in the "Targeted Individuals" article. An article about EH would be about lots of other things as well and is not properly defined yet, such as kids getting from the internet the design for turning a microwave oven into a weapon to sort the neighbor. All the heat here is about the TI claims. Jed Stuart (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I just re-read the article and find that there is no longer much about the TI claims, it is dominated by the psychiatric counter claims. It needs a good description of the TI claims from the RS. Some of the Beautifylpeoplelikeyou other article version on that would balance it up a bit. Jed Stuart (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

New source just found

Off-topic; Belongs to "Directed-energy weapon"

[1] 80.117.21.77 (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC) Where does it say this stuff is being used to covertly harass citizens? - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC) Nowhere of course. Did I mean to suggest it does? It's just that this controversy, I guess you may agree with me on this, is as well about the alleged existence of technologies capable of mimicking psychiatric illnesses. It's acknowledged these technologies exist and this source confirms it (as if it really was needed), thus omitting some amount of bias to the claims seems just wrong. Jed Stuard is right on this. Let's also mention that the public image of psychiatry, especially in the area of clandestine mind control, is grossly ambivalent. Indeed there's no branch of medicine that I know of which has an anti movement other than psychiatry. There's no... Anti-cardiology movement, nor an Anti-dermatology movement or an Anti-gynaecology movement etc. So psychiatry is shifty and it's its own acknowledged history telling so, it's not just about electronic harassment, a bunch of weird people claiming psychiatry is a conspiracy. Also, the MKULTRA program was supervised in great number by important psychiatrists of that time with their entourages. The point is that psychiatry is often too deeply clung to social rather than to medical issues. But it's all in the open anyway, nonetheless the sources used as the ground on which the bias of the page is built on refer mostly to diagnoses via websites. What sort of diagnosing method is that? Don't need to go too far in time to spot psychiatry has a juicy history of cruel abuse on innocents, and governments have that too. To make things worse, they often work together, and I'm not referring explicitely to MKULTRA but to the fact that generally speaking, psychiatric internment is one face of the coin of social control, with the other being prison. So I don't really trust wikipedia will be allowed to have published content which is not.. "government-aligned". I mean, take Julianne Mckinney for example, she should be considered a reliable source, but she's a whistleblower thus she's not. Take Dr. Nick Begich, same thing. Take Dr. John Hall, same thing. Take Dr. Robert Duncan, same thing again. Take Dr. Rauni Kilde. Take Dennis Kucinich, same thing. Take Jim Guest, same again. Afterall, wikipedia is mainstream media information, just as fox news, cnn, bbc, al jazeera and all the others. So what's all this?.. nothing, just a sad afterpiece as I see it from here. 95.252.92.104 (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC) There's no... Anti-cardiology movement, nor an Anti-dermatology movement or an Anti-gynaecology movement etc. On the contrary, there's quite a bit of anti-medical sentiment out there. Christian Science is the biggest one that comes to mind, although Jehovah's Witnesses often oppose specific medical treatments such as blood transfusions and autopsies, and this link lists more anti-medical religious groups. Then, there's the hundreds of non-religious conspiracy theories world wide opposing specific medical treatments; AIDS denialism, the Anti-vaccination movement, etc, etc... Of course, none of this includes the extremely common view that 'too much' prescription drugs is a very bad thing, regardless of how they were prescribed. So, you're not correct at all about psychiatry being unique in this regards. So I don't really trust wikipedia will be allowed to have published content which is not.. "government-aligned". You're assuming that WP has a position which stems from ideology on this. It does not. The position WP takes is that which realiable sources portray. If that position falls cleanly on one side of a controversial (to some) issue, then I would suggest that this is because that is the correct side of the issue for evidence-based thinkers to take. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC) @MjolnirPants: Excuse me, what is your hyperbole supposed to mean? At first read I really thought I had got something wrong and that you were right. But then I realized it was just your use of non-standard colors. It seems to me you just decorated a loose attempt to oppose my comment, with arguments that are cited nowhere in the sources. Where did you spot anti-medical religious claims in the sources of electronic harassment? Where did you spot Aids denialism and the Anti-vaccination movement? And where did you spot the claim that "too much prescription drugs is a very bad thing, regardless of how they were prescribed" accross the sources??? Despite what you colorfully write, psychiatry is the only branch of medicine with a very well recognized and active anti movement, since decades ago. For your information, there's no recognized Anti-Infectious disease movement and there's never been one as far as I know.. What the hell are you talking about? Lastly, you're free to believe wikipedia is allowed to publish any content which is not government-aligned as long as it respects the five pillars, but I beg to disagree. Honestly, you need to get a grip my dear friend. Electronic harassment revolves around specific arguments which are cited in the sources.. we can't simply bring in other arguments trying to give them notability at will. 87.1.112.251 (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC) I responded by quoting your exact words. I did so with respect to the context, and I responded clearly and with prosaic and easy-to-understand language and logic. If you can't or won't parse it, then I'm afraid I can't help you further. Simply sitting here and repeating your claims will not make you right, and in my not-inconsiderable experience here, will tend to end with you being ignored by other users. In addition, I would advise you to look up the meaning of the word "hyperbole." Either you're unaware of what it means, or completely ignorant of the irony in you accusing me of engaging on it. Finally, telling me to "get a grip" is a personal attack that can get you blocked from editing. I would advise you to tune down your rhetoric. (P.S: It's also hyperbole.) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC) @95.252.92.104: You lost me at Julianne Mckinney - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC) @LuckyLouie: I lost you what? Why? 87.1.112.251 (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC) You recommended Julianne Mckinney as a reliable source. I Googled her, read the crackpottery (that I assume you wish would appear on Wikipedia) and concluded there probably isn't any hope for a productive discussion here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Fringe tag

IMO, this tag applied to the article was done with good intentions, but not fully thought out. The tagger has not specified exactly which parts of the article are giving too much weight to fringe views. I was one of the editors that reworked this article to clean out fringe sources and copyedit the text in order to adequately explain the fringe views while not giving them undue weight. The goal is to describe the fringe views with enough detail from third party reliable sources without giving them undue emphasis or credibility. While I agree the article could use some better organization and polish, the basic weight/sourcing/compliance with WP:FRINGE looks pretty good to me. What do others think? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I took another look at it and gave it a quick reading, and I have to admit it does look a lot better than the last time I read through it. So I removed the tag, and re-titled the scare-quoted sections. I'm open to re-titling those sections again of course, but the scare quotes just looked awful. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Righteous removal. -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie: I added the tag. If it wasn't necessary, I apologize. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Two-in-One

I am uneasy seeing the the article mixes two separate, although related conspiracy theories: (1) existence of psychotronic weapons and (2) harassment by electromagnetic means.

It is natural that the two interleave, overlap and intermix wildly. It is also clear that in many parts they differ. And both cases are no wonder: the claims in both are wild speculations as to the nature of the tools used.

At first I thought to make two articles to clearly separate the two. But then it occurred to me that in the same mixer barrel go various mind control conspiracies. So now I am thinking about a comprehensive article under a descriptive title, Conspiracy theories about mind-targeting weapons. Any thoughts? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The proposed title suggests there are conspiracy beliefs about mind-targeting weapons that are not "electronic". (Are there? I honestly don't know) Also, we already have Psychotronics (with its section on Psychotronics - Conspiracy theories) as a separate article, but with material that largely duplicates what's in this one. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

"duplicates" - that's one of the reasons of my suggestion. "Are there?" - Did you read the article lately? Yes there are, and that's the second reason of my suggestion. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, I see claims about "alleged infringement of their civil liberties including "beaming rays" at them, putting chemicals in the water, and using magnets to alter their minds". "Putting chemicals in the water" is the only non-electronic mind control claim I see. Are there more? - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

"and using magnets" :-). Not to say "beaming rays" does not specify the nature of rays; kooks may claim they were subject to secret rays of new kind, like, psi-rays, or ultrasonic brain control. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Note Psychotronics (conspiracy theory) redirects to this article. There's no stand-alone for it. I'm kinda torn on this one. I think a more generalized page is better, but I'm not familiar with a lot of mind-control copsiracy theories that aren't all about technology. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Staszek, Yes, I can see what you're going for. Mind control conspiracy theories don't have to meet any standard of any technological feasibility. They are whatever our sources describe they are. But I suppose the bigger question, in terms of the article, is what kind of content would be added. Mind control is a pretty broad topic. While "psychotronic" seems to be a narrower term for mind control that is claimed to use some form of technology (sound waves, light waves, electromagnetic waves, etc.) - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, our mind control article focuses on psychological control ("brainwashing"), i.e., it correctly keeps a single subject for the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I think this content, if trimmed and summarized, would work extremely well as a "Conspiracy theories" subsection of Mind control. But I do think this is worthy of its own article, as well. However, the more I think about it, the more I think that, for this subject WP:COMMONNAME is the best standard for picking a name. The issue is that, as far as I've seen, "Targeted Individuals" is the most common name, and wouldn't require any disambiguation. However, the name seems too credulous and vague. Do either of you have any thoughts on this? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Targeted individual already redirects here, so we're covered for that common name. If you look at the sources we have, the claims aren't limited to "mind" control. The claims are also that technology is being used to make people physically ill, give them nausea, dizziness, etc. so an article title such as Conspiracy theories about mind-targeting weapons doesn't adequately describe the range of the topic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Good points. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Workover

I worked this over a bit to try to make it flow better. There wasn't much description of what folks actually experience and that seems like it should be front and center. So I did that. Jytdog (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

-LuckyLouie. I am not making the point that psychiatry is part of the conspiracy, although some may be. My point is they may be ignorant of new forms of harassment that are not taken into account in their mindset. It would not be the first time a scientific discipline has got something wrong. I will attempt to change the article to make it how it seems it should be and see if you are wrong about the judgment that I am attempting to push a fringe point of view. The citation I was referring to is number 4 by Dietrich, that has not been peer reviewed it seems.Jed Stuart (talk) 04:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jed Stuart, I moved your comment here because you were editing an archived page. New comments belong on the Talk page, thanks. I also reverted your latest edit, in which you removed material from the article that was directly supported by the article's sources. Myself and other editors have attempted to explain relevant Wikipedia editorial policies to you many times on Talk pages, so I'm beginning to think disruption or WP:COMPETENCE applies here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jed Stuart: If there is a technology so new that no-one's heard of it, then by definition, it doesn't belong in this encyclopedia. We don't write The Truth™ here, we write verifiable, accurate content. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@JedStuart: By the way, you are correct that Dietrich's paper is a Master's thesis, however the informal general opinion of the WP community about the use of Master's thesis as sources is that many Master's programs do have stringent review as a condition of publication, and so a thesis may be cited with the caveat that it should not be the sole source directly supporting the article text. I note there is a guideline that Master's thesis as sources should have "significant scholarly influence", so anyone who objects to including the Dietrich source on those grounds can remove it. (The article text, being supported by other multiple reliable sources, would remain) However IMO, using it in this article is appropriate, since Dietrich's conclusions are not at all novel or controversial (she uses recognized texts such as the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders for source material) and are clearly echoed by the other academic sources present in the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Caveat: Master thesis is OK as a source of facts reported during the research. However the conclusions of a thesis are not at all automatically due, because a Master is not a recognized expert yet. Therefore I agree that thesis is OK as a footnote to an opinion only as a supplement to more respected sources, because they may contain more factual detail. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

-LuckyLouie, Thankyou for moving my comments to the appropriate place. It seems to me that what you are attempting to do to the article is take the controversy out of it, whereas the Washington Post described it as such. It is ok to state the opinion of psychiatrists but not ok to state their opinion as fact. All I am attempting to do is describe the controversy as it has appeared in that article. You can call that disruption, but it is only disruption of your very hard line on that. There has been enough huffing and puffing in alternative media also for it to be recognized that their is a growing controversy, even though their conclusion cannot be included in Wikipedia. To say "Individuals suffering from auditory hallucinations, delusional disorders[5] or other mental illness.." states that TIs are mentally ill as a matter of fact not of opinion. I will take the matter to the conflict resolution process. Jed Stuart (talk) 03:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jed Stuart: It is ok to state the opinion of psychiatrists but not ok to state their opinion as fact. When psychiatrists agree (as they do in this case) upon something, it becomes a consensus. That is something which WP policy requires us to state as fact. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

-LuckyLouie, I have put in a request for dispute resolution at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.Jed Stuart (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

-MjolnirPants. That does not seem to me to stand up as psychiatrists agreeing. As is pointed out in one of the articles, the psychiatrists DSM states that the tag of delusions for a group of people with a common different belief is not to be considered as delusional. Also, there is little sign of much peer review on that psychiatric opinion. Where do you get the idea that psychiatrists agree? Jed Stuart (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

This is not a forum. Please discuss the actual article content, or proposals for content. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe Jed is referring to this citation from Psychopathology (journal). No, it does not state that people who imagine themselves targeted by electronic mind control should not be considered delusional. If you read the article in its entirety, you see that it argues that the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for delusions exempting persons who belong to a community of common beliefs (Scientology for example) be modified in response to the proliferation of Internet "communities" such as those catering to "TI's". TL;DR: It advocates closing a loophole in the DSM that would allow anyone with an internet connection to find an online community supporting their delusional belief and avoid being diagnosed as delusional. - LuckyLouie (talk)

Jed, I suppose you missed the part that said "The sampled web-published accounts of MCEs are highly likely to be influenced by delusional beliefs." MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I was not referring to the Psychopathology Journal article. I was referring to the article http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/fashion/13psych.html?pagewanted=all. So I haven't read what you are quoting MjolnirPants, but yes that is consistently the view of most psychiatrists. I accept that as such. I don't need to read other versions of same.Jed Stuart (talk) 05:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Paid editing now

I was just looking around in Upwork, and there is an ad:

Hello, I need a seasoned wikipedia editor to help my organization create page for the group of non-consensual test / torture subjects known as TARGETED INDIVIDUALS. It will require good strategy, hard work, and tedious organization and planning. Please email me if you are interested, and check out this short page for background information: www.BiggerThanSnowden.com

Oy Jytdog (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Yikes! Feels like this should be cross-posted to WP:FTN - might not just be this article that gets targeted (no pun intended). Kolbasz (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

There are also recent related efforts to organize meatpuppets. If this results in article disruption, a notice at WP:FTN can be helpful, but IMO, Advocacy and COI issues are better handled at WP:AN/I and WP:COIN as they arise. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Notability of politician advocacy

The problem with the statements which have been removed twice in the past day is three-fold:

1. A handful of politicians operating mostly on a city or county level (with one federal politician) doesn't make enough impact in the media or public consciousness to garner the sort of attention which would make something notable without significant coverage (itself generally considered a strong requirement of notability, only waived in extreme cases).
2. The election-cycle antics of a handful of politicians do not qualify as serious advocacy, nor did any of the events establish any sort of support network.
3. It's very arguable that the sources used to support the statements are not generally reliable for statements of fact. A politicians campaign website, for example, is often useful only for establishing what the contents of the politician's website are. It's usually quite trivial to find a politician delivering speeches in which they contradict what they've stated on their website. Politicians, by definition, seek votes, and understand that the people who go to political rallies and the people who simply visit the website might not share the same views. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I tried to make the reason for my reversion as clear as I could, but the edit summary length limit is a harsh mistress.
I reverted the addition because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Had, say, Barack Obama or Vladimir Putin openly declared their support for EH/TI, that would probably have been worthy of inclusion in this article. But the added paragraph was about a local political candidate, who is apparently not notable enough to qualify for her own Wikipedia article, sourced to her own website. In essence, it's equivalent to "some person in California thinks that ...". Now, if her promise to end mind control had been picked up by the media and received significant coverage in reliable sources, things would have been different... but as far as I can tell, that has not happened. Kolbasz (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Good call. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Yup, good edit. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

And User:BroughtToYouByMolly turned out to be a sock of previously blocked User:Beautifulpeoplelikeyou. Kolbasz (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)