https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Youwikitubepedia&oldid=878772329
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Youwikitubepedia&offset=&limit=500&target=Youwikitubepedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=878804816#Spamming_Youtube-links_in_edit_summaries
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&oldid=878770159
Not for the first time, it looks like someone has crafted an elaborate scheme just to fuck with the Wikipedians. A carefully concocted scenario of a possibly good faith user who is nonetheless doing odd things. Likely to test the capacity of the Wikipedians to assume good faith, or simply to communicate adequately.
With their initial lack of awareness the new recruit with the problematic username even existed (contrasting nicely with the suggestion he might be a hacker looking to infect machines with malware!), then their customary canned welcome message (simply blanked), then their bad faith assumption of spamming or worse, and the attendant indefinite block before the user has even had a chance to respond to their series of impersonal and confusing notices and warnings, I'd say they failed, spectacularly.
Bonus material to be found in how the user was, despite already having been reported to AN/I (where they were spoken of in the OP as if they were not even a person, much less having a role to play in the proceeding), was hours later reported to AIV (with a direct accusation they were not a person), and the block resulting from that (neither reporter or blocker apparently noticing the AN/I notification on their talk page).
Extra bonus for the AN/I debate featuring a classic 'he said what?' type comment from Davey2010, plus power~enwiki just inventing policy out of his ass, plus, and I can hardly believe I am typing this, a claim from Ronz that they had even violated SOAP. Get your head around that, if you can. Oh, and the obligatory all action / limited communication input from Guy Chapman.
We really should make a bingo game out of these things.
And frankly, you have to invent a whole new class of award to recognize the awesomeness of blocking someone for posting links to videos because they are spam or malicious (obviously can't be both, but this is what they said), without having even viewed the videos.
Given the complete lack of a response from the user, as if not wanting to taint the results with introducing unpredictable or unrepeatable stimulus, I'd say the Wikipediots are being experimented on. Like rats in a lab.
What a shame, eh? You shouldn't do that. Really. No. Stop. If you don't stop, I will be forced to send you money. For lab equipment.
If this is experimentation, that really would make my day. But any other explanation, is almost as amusing. Obviously, if they are a good faith user, perhaps even someone intent on helping Wikipedia through a class or somesuch, then this was a hilariously bad reaction.
If they were a spammer, then they got all the views they were ever likely to get (there would be a long tail from such a scam, but not enough to make it worthwhile to expend any extra effort to ensure the links stick for longer than they already achieved due to the Wikipedian's ridiculously slow reaction).
On that score, the final possibility, that they were seeding malware, well, this was a fucking disaster. A total fail. Especially given the username. The fact nobody has reported any ill-effects, suggests this is not what it was, unless, of course, what has been transferred is meant to lie dormant.
If malware or spam, then YouTube (Google) might want to ask for a refund of their donations to Wikipedia, since it appears nobody seems to think telling them they think this guy is a hacker, is a matter of urgency. Who knows, maybe it's Google who are doing the experiment.......
Just another hilarious day in the Factory of Stupid.
