User talk:Igorberger/01-january-2008-06-January-2008

Quote with respect to Social engineering

The page you inserted the quote onto is a disambiguation page; it is meant as a way-finder to give readers a choice of similarly titled articles. Content should never be put on this page, except for perhaps a few brief words to differentiate the titles. I have moved your quote to Talk:Social engineering (political science)‎, where you and other editors can discuss whether or not it is a relevant inclusion to the article. I urge you not to simply insert it into the article but to work collaboratively with others to determine if the quote and the link belong in the article.

I have inserted a notable quatation, by McAfee engineer because there was a request for citation on the article page Social engineering request for citation. You are saying that the article is Wikipedia:Disambiguation What is the link to the actual article? Igor Berger (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Citations should not automatically be added simply because someone requests them. In this case, the request was made by an IP editor who might better have been redirected to the article itself for an explanation, instead of being provided with a citation that may or may not be relevant to their question. A message on the IP editor's talk page suggesting that they read the article and, if desired, reword the very brief description of the article, would have been preferable. It is a long article about a complex subject, so I can understand that you did not want to reword the brief description yourself. Another alternative would have been to leave a message on the talk page of the article itself to ask an editor familiar with the subject to reword the brief description on the disambiguation page. The request for citation was placed in the brief description of the Social engineering (political science)‎ article; I am not certain if the quote you have selected will really be pertinent, although that is best decided by people familiar with the article and subject. Thus, I have left your selected quote on the talk page of that article, with a note asking them to review. I hope this is helpful. Risker (talk) 07:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I found the actual article Social_engineering_(political_science) The request for citation confused me. I will procede acordingly. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 07:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Placing a request for citation on Social engineering disambiguation page is in itself Social engineering, because it confuses the issue and questions notable authority of the article. That is WikiPedia Malware Spam Igor Berger (talk) 07:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are placing far too much importance on a simple question. That citation request was (and is) not malware - it is using Mediawiki software and there is absolutely no external software infiltration. It is not appropriate to suggest that other editors, using the very tools that are built right into Wikipedia, are attacking the content of the encyclopedia. It is also not spam. There are tens of thousands of articles that have those tags in them, because an editor wanted to know where the information came from. I urge you to consider Durova's advice above[1], and request a mentor through the WP:ADOPT program to assist you in understanding some of these issues. I am not online frequently enough to provide support; however, there are several experienced editors who provide assistance. Risker (talk) 07:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation request on the article Social_engineering_(political_science) would not have been Malware Spam or social engineering Malware Spam, but placing the request on Social engineering disambiguation page is Malware. You noticed my edit but not an anon IP user edit, why is that? Also, I am an experienced Web developer with 15 years in development. I work with SpamAssassin, StopBadware.org, and PHSDL. What do you want me to learn about Spam and Malware? Igor Berger (talk) 08:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the link and quote you added to the encyclopedia onto the page. Are you telling me that it is malware? Then why did you add it to the encyclopedia the first place? I have no idea whether or not you need to learn more about software. I am repeating Durova's suggestion that you participate in the WP:ADOPT program to learn more about how to most effectively edit Wikipedia using the collaborative method. Knowing software and understanding the "Wikipedia way" are two very different things.

As to "noticing" your edit, as it happens I have the WP:RFAR page watchlisted because I have been commenting on a case listed on that page. I saw your request come up, read it over, and followed the links you had inserted to learn more about the situation that led to your making a request for arbitration. I decided to make changes to what you had added so that the disambiguation page is in line with Wikipedia standards; rather than delete your link/quote outright, I moved it to the talk page of the article for which the citation had been requested, with an explanation. Then, I came and told you what I had done, and why. I've continued to respond to your questions, although this will be my last response for tonight. --Risker (talk) 08:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation and for detecting my mistake of placing the quote on disambiguation page! I was confused by the need for citation on that page, and that is social engineering Malware Spam, because it was done by an anon IP user. That citation request should have been cuaght and deleted long time ago, but it is very hard for all of us as a colobaration to police the WikiPedia project. Igor Berger (talk) 08:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Independently, I urge you to reconsider your request for arbitration. Having looked at the background there, it does not appear that you have used other means of dispute resolution, as is normally expected before the Arbitration Committee will agree to accept a case. I will point out that putting what appears to be a poll or petition onto an article talk page is not usually acceptable unless it specifically has to do with an editorial decision to be made about the page (for example - deciding which of two photos to use as the lead photo). --Risker (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I will withdraw the request for arbitration Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#ST47 if administrator User:ST47 apologizes to me for calling me a Troll. WikiPedia is not a place to be abusive to other editors, especially by an administrator. Igor Berger (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I have withdrawn my request for arbitration and will try to work with ST47. We will just have to learn how to agree to disagree and not to call each other names but to discuss thing in a rational mature matter, which at times may be a chalenge including me! Igor Berger (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Your arbitration statement

On your arbitration statement and above you make it quite clear that you are offended by being called "a troll", and that you find such a description offensive and inaccurate.

With this in mind, it seems entirely appropriate to point out that you run a website and blog (links deliberately left out for user privacy) in which you describe yourself as "Igor the Troll", and that you used the same phrase as your screenname for Google Groups. If you run a google search for the same term, every one of the top links appears to relate to you in posts or websites made by you.

One webpage which appears to be run by you begins with the statement: "I am Igor The Troll aka Igor Berger". The same website shows screenshots of forums from which you appear to have been banned, accompanied by statements such as "You have Been Royally Trolled!" and "I do not get it, how can you ban a Troll for Trolling? ".

To make my position clear, I absolutely and completely believe that every editor has the right to make their life outside of Wikipedia private (hence no links, but can add them if asked). On the other hand, if a person professes to have suffered some grave hurt because a term was used within Wikipedia that they regularly and voluntarily apply to themselves elsewhere, I think that others may feel entitled to question both the intentions of that person in bringing a RfA and the amount of suffering and distress that has really been caused.

Leaving aside for the moment whether you could accurately be described as a "troll" in the general sense, can you explain why it is both offensive and worthy of arbitration for someone to describe you as a "troll" within Wikipedia, when outside Wikipedia you very publically choose to describe yourself as "Igor the Troll"  ? Gohdeilocks (talk) 10:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Possibly you are using "troll" in a more general and ironic sense, --listing your nick on your user page with the word troll included is likely to produce misunderstanding here. DGG (talk) 13:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, DGG. Quoting User:Igorberger, "You can also find me on the net with my nick Igor The Troll as an SEO Evangelist and an Activist." Igor Berger (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make was not about ST47's statement that this user's contribution appeared to be trolling; it was about this user's reaction to it (which I feel is wholly disproportionate) and their supposed "hurt" (which, following from the first point, I feel is feigned). Sadly, based on what evidence there is so far, I really, really cannot bring myself to assume good faith in this case on behalf of this user in bringing the action. I really hope Igor can persuade me otherwise, and I look forward to being corrected. It's pretty clear that most legitimate editors are understandably surprised or offended if a contribution they feel is in good faith is reverted as "trolling". But how many then take it to RfA straight away, giving the other party just 45 minutes to reply - especially late on New Year's Eve ? That is surprising enough, but when it transpires that the same "offended party" not only freely applies the same supposedly hugely offensive term - "Igor the Troll" to themselves, but also builds a whole website based on that domain name, celebrating being banned from numerous forums for trolling, it brings into question how much offense has really been taken by the use of the term. I would suggest that the evidence points to this user having not been at all offended or maligned by ST47's statement, from which I can only question whether the RfA was brought in good faith. I agree with DGG's that using the word "troll" on your user page is a Bad Idea. On the other hand, not having it here, but having it plastered all over the rest of the internet next to your name may erroneously lead people to think that you are trying to disguise your motives for editing Wikipedia. I don't know what the solution to that is I'm afraid: perhaps even writing more, not less, about your nickname on your user page would give other editors a clearer idea of your good intentions. Gohdeilocks (talk) 13:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Gohdeilocks, I left you a message on your talk page. User_talk:Gohdeilocks#Gohdeilocks_Attempting_to_Bait_User:Igorberger Igor Berger (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no attempt to bait here, and I am sorry that you feel that there is. I have explained above that (i) given you clearly invested a huge amount of time on the internet to describe yourself as a "troll", for you to express amazement, shock and hurt when others take you at your word is somewhat surprising (ii) even without this, taking this straight to RfA is a huge overreaction; and (iii) I've suggested steps you could take to stop other editors assuming you are a self-declared troll in the future. I have tried to be fair throughout, have respected your off-Wiki privacy by not linking to your websites or usenet history, and have clearly stated that I hope you can persuade me that my viewpoint is wrong. Gohdeilocks (talk) 14:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify my actions to the WikiPedia community, the reason I did not reply to alias refrence on my talk page because it was not relevent and out of place. The talk if there is a need and a requirement per WkiPedia bilaws should be done at arbitration committie not on some user page by an editor with no edit history. To me as an expert Spam Malware Evangelist it is a sign of Baitting and social engineering. Would you tell someone that you just met on the street about your personal life? I do not think so! Igor Berger (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Documenting request to Ban abusive Sockpuppet User:Gohdeiloc

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#A_request_to_Ban_an_abusive_Sockpuppet_User:Gohdeilocks

Gohdeiloc speaking in twisted tounges to my offer to withdraw the ban request Igor Berger (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted again and again to find a resolution to this issue but there does not seem to be anyway around the fact that User:Gohdeilocks is attempting to social engineer a negative bias towards me User:Igorberger and even WikiPedia as a whole. I believe his talk page was created to further conduct social engineering towards me by linking to the page from outside WikiPedia. I have requested the administration notice board to delete any comments the user has made to this incident on all user pages and to delete his talk page. Igor Berger (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Documenting archive

A_request_to_Ban_an_abusive_Sockpuppet_User:Gohdeilocks

Resolution

The agreement was broken right way by User:Gohdeilocks with further social engineering of his talk page.

User:Gohdeilocks account has been blocked by administration.

Gohdeilocks account blocked by WikiPedia administration Igor Berger (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Propose changing section title at WP:ANI

Thank you for agreeing, along with User:Gohdeilocks, to de-escalate your dispute. I've purposely avoided "taking sides" in the dispute you and he have been having at WP:ANI. However, he has mentioned on my talk page that he has a problem with leaving the title of the thread "A request to Ban an abusive Sockpuppet User:Gohdeilocks". Regardless of whether you think it is a fair title or not, would you mind if I change the title to "User:Gohdeilocks", in the interest of letting the issue die? --barneca (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Barneca, no I do not agree for changing the title of WP:ANI this is not over at all.

(Even before I placed this on his talk page he already started changing the titles on his talk page!)

I wanted to end this by placing reference to the request on the WP:ANI on his talk page to show the process was fare and honest by all parties.

my request to him

He reverted with social engineering

The man clerly created the page to social engineer negative bias towards me by linking to the page from outside WeikiPedia. That in itself is a reason to block the user and delete all his comments and his talk page. Unless he can accept a refernce to the Administration notice board request and resolution on his talk page, I will file a request to block the user and delete his social engineering talk page and comments because it is destructive to WikiPedia as a community. Please take a look at naturalhealthperspective.net and see if you see a patern and a relationship between that Wikipedia user abuse and my abuse by User:Gohdeilocks. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand, Igor. Do you want this to end, or not? You said many times in that thread that you would be happy to stop all further contact; now you say "this is not over at all", and posted to his talk page 4 minutes after agreeing not to. You can't have it both ways. Would you like me to un-archive the WP:ANI thread, and you can continue your unproductive dispute? I'm afraid I can strongly suspect that it won't end the way you want it to end; I just don't see, as an outside observer, that this is going to end in any kind of block/ban of Gohdeilocks, nor do I think their talk page is going to get deleted. Why not walk away, and go back to editing articles?--barneca (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank for replying, I was in the process to post on your page, but browser went lulu! Anyway, no do not un-archive, let`s leave it as is, and he can do what ever he wants, because his intent is clearly social engineering. He does not even want reference to the administration notice board discussion on his talk page! I wounder why..:) I do not want to waste the time of the administration board so I will see if he continues to social engineer inside WikiPedia. Outside WikiPedia and linking to what ever he wants in WkiPedia that is his choice, and we do not have control over that. But at this time I will pause and let this quiet down. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I finally understand that you believe User:Gohdeilocks is User:John Gohde. I really wish you had said that explicitly somewhere earlier, especially when at least one admin specifically asked you who you thought he was a sockpuppet of. I knew nothing of John Gohde until 10 minutes ago, and it looks like the backstory on him is too long for me to get into today, so I have no idea if you are correct about your suspicion or not. As it stands, whether he is or not, you've both agreed to stay away from each other. I won't ask to rename the ANI thread any more; if Gohdeilocks continues to object, he can take it up on WP:ANI itself. --barneca (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Gohdeilocks is not User:John Gohde he is the abuser of User:John Gohde. Good luck looking into this, Igor Berger (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

122.167...

Hi - I'm getting the feeling the best thing to do would be to ignore this guy until he calms down. If the current block doesn't work, and he's still soapboxing tomorrow, I'll either put a longer one on or lengthen the current one. That's really badly worded, but I think the idea is there... thanks Martinp23 17:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree and I left him a message to that effect User_talk:122.167.6.1#Please_dont_make_false_allegation Igor Berger (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Social engineering malware

Anyone interested in starting an article on Social engineering malware you are welcome to do it.

The reasoning for the article are described at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam#Social_Engineering_is_Malware_Spam. Once the article has been built, a link to it will be placed at Social engineering disambiguation page.

While I would like to make Social engineering malware as part of Social engineering (political science) I feel that would be destructive implementation for what we trying to avoid in the first place. Still reference on Social engineering (political science) can be made to Social engineering malware.

It is a Malware because it is hurting WikiPedia platform and community, same like Zlob trojan or any other Malware on a computer.

Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

usernetx bbc report of CIA social engineering of Wikipedia Igor Berger (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Slashdot | Mayor of Florence Sues Wikipedia Igor Berger (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Just cos

Nengscoz416 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you, ..) Igor Berger (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

naturalhealthperspective.net

If I were to say anything meaningful at all on your talk page, now, it would only be used against me on my Arbitration case. I would suggest that you use the email feature that I have set up on my talk page. It is not the Wikipedia email feature, but rather my blog email feature. -- John Gohde (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

John no need to say anything. I am not here to defend you, that you have to do yourself. I am following WP:NPOV and no WP:COI. If there is any relevent information pertenent to your case I will advise. As a WikiPedia editor and a Spam patrolman I stand against Sock puppetry and defend WP:NPA policy. Wish you good luck, Igor Berger (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You are prohibited from editing my evidence section. Please, read the rules at the top of the evidence page.

Control over my talk page content was part of my first arbitration. I won that issue, as I recall. I am not remotely interested in my Talk page being in Google at all. -- John Gohde (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, just learning how to format at RfA. Igor Berger (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

John you need to answer my questions that I raise to you at RfA in RfA so everyone can see them, not on my talk page. Igor Berger (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/John_Gohde_2/Evidence Igor Berger (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/John_Gohde_2/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Igorberger Igor Berger (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:ST47. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 01:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

ST47 Thank you for your welcome message. And a Happy 2008 to you as well. Igor Berger (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

But, how?

Thanks for your guidance on Wikipedia:Non-administrator rollback#Edit wars: prevention. My question - how do I bring this to a few admins' notice (without getting into a mudslinging competition, it's very stressful)? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

How about WP:RFC and stress WP:NPOV, if that does not work bring it down to WP:AN, WP:ANI, then back up to WP:RFAR for Arbcom. Igor Berger (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If you believe the proposal in how it is being proposed is violating WP:NPOV then tag it for speedy deletion and let the admins decide. I personally think it is biased, in violation of WP:NPOV per WikiPedia policy of that we are a consensus community verses a voting community. So just place {{deletebecause|reason}} on Wikipedia:Non-administrator_rollback and let them get over it.

You can first worn them Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion by placing Template:Uw-notvote but I doubt it is really necessary because there is alot of WP:COI and WP:ABF. I tried to guide them to WP:NPOV but it looks like they just want to raillroad it pass all check points a balances so I would support WP:CSD, but being that I am so much involved in the article discussion proces for me to place the speedy deletion tag will be a violation of NPOV, and would look like COI and WP:ABF. Good luck, Igor Berger (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Greetings returned, happy 2008!

Здравствулте and Sawat dee krab, Igor! You've certainly kept busy and have not shied from controversies! So, aside from the "big" issues (Knol et al.), what are some of the smaller topics you enjoy? —PētersV (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanx for coming! I enjoy beautiful girls..:) Arigato Gozai Imasu, Igor Berger (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Brooklyn Dodgers

What do you mean?   jj137 ^♠ 19:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Brooklyn Dodgers, may they live for ever in our spirts! Igor Berger (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

John Gohde and WP:SOCK

I'm having a hard time understanding your allegation that he violated WP:SOCK. It might help if you provided diffs. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you need to retrace his steps to really grasp the whole picture. And it is not an allegation but a fact that he himself confessed to at Arbcom. Igor Berger (talk) 06:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you actually read WP:SOCK? He stopped using one account and started using another. It's not a violation. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have something constructive to say please bring it up in Arbcom. This case cannot be letigated on user talk pages. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 08:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I just wanted to give you an opportunity to rescind your remarks. I have refuted your claims in my evidence. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User page comment

Thanks! A good amount of it was done by a now-retired editor, User:Sango123. She hasn't been around for a while, but used to help design user pages for people. You're welcome to borrow / steal any part of it, if you'd like. Tijuana Brass (talk) 08:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like another soap opera, I had one too many lately..:) I wish I can help you dig up references, but I am so tied up, that I can really use a wikibreak! By the way, have we met some place? I am not sure maybe AN or ANI, you looked really skillful helping settle disputes! Keep up the good work, and I will see if I can guide some qualified editors your way to help out with the biography project. Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 08:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)