Misplaced Pages

User talk:Igorberger

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MKoltnow (talk | contribs) at 00:48, 4 February 2008 (I am concerned about the style in which you contribute to the project). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:48, 4 February 2008 by MKoltnow (talk | contribs) (I am concerned about the style in which you contribute to the project)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template:TrollWarning

Vandalism information
Severe
High
Elevated
Guarded
Low
8.38 RPM according to EnterpriseyBot
edit

Talk Archives


WP:NOT

Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Prescott Bush for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you.--Veritas (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Prescott Bush support for Hitler and anti FDR is notable. This video shows the notability. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnAUQeHykXY
Instead of just using templates, I'll add that your continuous reversions are disruptive as they clearly violate WP:NOT#FORUM. Article talk pages are not a forum for posting videos or chatting on the general subject matter of the individual concerned in the article. Rather, article talk pages are for the discussion of article edits only. --Veritas (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not chating about Prescott Bush but the video is by a journalist about Bush's connection to Hitler and FDR. Igor Berger (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
You are using the forum to post a video, not to discuss article edits. WP:NOT#FORUM clearly states, "talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritas (talk • contribs) 16:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:Prescott Bush for inappropriate discussions you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. --Veritas (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You do not own the article or are you a boss of WikiPedia. I reverted 3 times and you reverted 3 times. If you revert one more time you will be violating the WP:3RR Igor Berger (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Note that 3RR makes an exception for the reversion of obvious vandalism. I have already pointed out to you how your edits are obviously violating Wiki policy. Please cease now. --Veritas (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
You do not own the article and I am not a vandal but an editor. You have violated 3RR and I am reporting you. Igor Berger (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
You are also WP:Refactor your talk page for social engineering refactoring Igor Berger (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • He replied. " That sounds like a fringe video to me."

January 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for You have been warned repeatedly to cease your disruptive style of editing. Your return to legitimate warnings is to put false and accusatory warnings on the pages of those editors so pointing you to correct and proper policy and guidelines as you did here. You have been previously warned that such disruptive editing is provocative and disruptive. I am blocking you for a period so that you cease these activities. Please cool off and spend some time reading the policies and guidelines rather than using pointy wiki-lawyering in your rebuttal comments when you return.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. --VS 22:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

This Block was not merited being that the situation was already resolved!

Decline reason:

It would not appear so, looking at the contribs history, your repeated attempts to use the talk page as a forum, and then your bogus NPA warning against Veritas does not show a good-faith attempt to work within the bounds of Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

The block was not merited because I was not violating any WikiPedia policy and User:VirtualSteve has WP:ABF with User:Igorberger and calls me a Troll and a crocodile. Igor Berger (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are not blocked at this time. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

  • The reason for moving old messages because the page has become to big! Igor Berger (talk)

Note to admin considering second unblock request

Please see the following edits here, and here and perhaps ask these editors as to the truth of this matter. - With thanks --VS 09:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Igor, brotherman... the crocodile comment was innocuous. VS and I were trading derogatory remarks and he mentioned a crocodile. In vernacular, a croc simply refers to VS's Aussie lineage. Please be advised that having never come across your edits, there is no way I could have meant it in a direct reference to you, nor would I ever adhere to such a personal attack. I was simply engaging in personal banter with Steve, and as you can see, the word 'crocodile' came up. I can empathize with you feeling that it was directed towards you, but looking over all realms of possibility, I think you can see it surely did not refer to you. I apologize for any misconceptions. Unless you are indeed a crocodile, in which case, yeah, I can see why you are pissed. Later, gator. the_undertow 09:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Dude I have no bad blood with you. I actually seen your good work at ANI. Igor Berger (talk) 09:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • (copied from Jehochman's page) Please come to my talk page Igor - politely - leave Jehochman alone - stop telling stories and point me to exact diffs of these complaints. Then I can show you why you are a troll, why you were warned by other editors for trolling, why I never called YOU a crocodile (you were not even a part of the conversation) and why you are a destructive editor. I will also post this edit on your talk page and will not respond further anywhere else. So please come to my talk page when you are ready.--VS 09:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • VirtualSteve you are acting like an experienced editor like you are perfect and do not make mistakes. And as if you know everything without investigating the issues. How long have you been an WikiPedia admin? 7 months and 1 day? Igor Berger (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Igor, why don't we take it over to my zoo of a page. I'm sure we can find some resolve. I'll be happy to act as a neutral party and then you guys can carry on as positive contributors, and I can carry on with whatever I do here. the_undertow 09:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The undertow I rather do this at my cage being VS likes me so much..:) Igor Berger (talk) 09:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This issue between VirtualSteve and Igorberger has been resolved amiable Igor Berger (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So I thought but instead of deescalating the matter VirtualSteve is thowing more gasoline on the fire This is what he said to me when I asked him for help, "VirtualSteve can you telll User:Veritas I am not Trolling you or him - Not a chance - Veritas was and is correct"Igor Berger (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to Troll (internet)

Howdy. I reverted your edit to this article because there is already a "see also" at the top of the article to the Misplaced Pages essay, Misplaced Pages:What is a troll?. There's no need for a section in that article which would have the same meaning. Thanks for your contribution. MKoltnow 04:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Igor, but...

...it's just a garden variety vandal, just coming off a 6 month school block, and I fear soon to go back on one. No need to feed him, just ignore him and he'll go away. --barneca (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I try to help people because I know it can be hard on both ends. Hope he stops if not he will be blocked. Igor Berger (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

redirected talk pages.

No . really. You're joking. Take it to ANI. Meanwhile, leave my talk page alone. Thanks. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It is at ANI and this is not the way to do it. Please listen to your fellow WikiPedians on how to resolve the problem. Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Dude, my fellow wikipedians are full of stuff and nonsense. Ummm, don't let the whole title of admin go to your head, 'kay? Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, and sorry if I came out the wrong way to you, was just trying to fix the problem..:) formal apology— Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorberger (talk • contribs)
Please note that Igor is not an admin. --Veritas (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Veritas thank you for clarifying it. I never said I am an admin..:) Igor Berger (talk) 06:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem - Didn't mean to imply that you did. --Veritas (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Igorberger/Social engineering (Internet) start

As a Misplaced Pages anti-spam patrolman I was adviced to write a user space eassy on the topic As a security analyst I feel this problem is very paramount at WikiPedia and needs to be addressed from all sides. Igor Berger (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiSpecs.org

This article also appears to be a copyright infringement. Sorry, but I don't think it belongs on Misplaced Pages in its present state. Regards, WWGB (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I do not think the guy knows how to build a Misplaced Pages article. Leave him a message on his talk page to do it in his sandbox first and ask an advise before going main space. Igor Berger (talk) 12:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Note that the page has been afd-ed. WLU (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Nice job, always good to help a fellow wiki man! Igor Berger (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Ioeth#WikiSpecs.org

Hello, Igorberger. You have new messages at Ioeth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 17:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

user:Igorberger/Social engineering (Internet)

I saw you mention on another talk page you were going to ask someone to copyedit user:Igorberger/Social engineering (Internet), I've gone through and cleaned it up a bit, spelling only at the moment, if you'd like I can go through and fix any grammar problems as well, in about 5 hours when I am back online. If you don't want me to, just leave me a note on my talk page. Dureo (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, that would be great. The more people work on an article the better it is. We have no ownership, so please help out. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I've gone through and done a somewhat major cleanup on it, read through it and make sure I haven't made any mistakes(I really know nothing on the subject.) and let me know if you want me to read over it again, I am going to be away for a bit proofreading a friends novel, but I will check every once in a while for new messages. Also I changed all instances of 'gain the system' to 'game the system' as I believe that is what you mean, I have never heard the first term used and googling it returned nothing related. if that is incorrect feel free to revert that. Dureo (talk) 05:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. And the essay needs to be understood by people who know nothing about the subject so it is good you did not know anything about it. Igor Berger (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I gave it a quick read and it is excelent work. I will move the essay to main space. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, per your comments on Durova's page its not working like a charm. Its actually exceedingly annoying waving TLAs in the face of experienced editors - are you unable to use proper words? I also suggest that you think carefully before accusing other editors of biting. Please explain how a user who was disrupting the project in 2006 is a newbie? There are no bite issues here but there are a lot of disruption issues and you are encouraging him to ignore the advice he has been given and continue to beat the dead donkey. I'm sure that your intentions are good but its generally a good idea to actually think through what other editors are meaning rather then issue knee-jerk TLAs at people. Spartaz 07:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    The essay os for the accuser! It is irony and sarcasam and not meant to critisize an experienced editor, unless cretesizim is due! I also recommend to block the user for 24 hours that giving Misplaced Pages problems. Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 07:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:SARCASM anyone??? (notice the ironic use of a WP name instead if using words). Your actual comment was No need for block, we do not want to WP:BITE. Please read WP:SEI and next time think really hard before claiming such. Igor Berger (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC) You actually said you didn't support a block and I can't see any indication that the comment was intended anywhere other then in my direction. I'm going to drop this now but I hope you have seen my point. Spartaz 07:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    I thought he learned his lesson, but he did not and kept coming. So I said, "Maybe a 24 hour block will teach him to relax?" Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 07:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Roadmap

Hello Igor -- any chance you can share your roadmp for success as a Misplaced Pages editor? I'd be interested in your specific learnings, where you started, what surprised you and what you learned the most from? Thanks for any information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raysecurity (talk • contribs) 06:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to think about that, because it is not easy thing to talk about and what works for one editor may not work for another one. Also what worked in the past may not work in the future. Igor Berger (talk) 07:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess what really helps me be a good editor is my experience in software security field that I am applying on Misplaced Pages. Also my willingness to compromise and think of the whole project before thinking of myself or a particular article that I create. Igor Berger (talk) 07:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about your edit style

Igor, I am troubled by the way in which you edit here. I suggest that you exhibit several of the behaviours which are considered tendentious editing. There is a list of Characteristics of problem editors. Of course you do not exhibit all of these, but enough of them seem to describe your edit style, and I thought I should say something. I realise this list is designed to talk about articles in the main articlespace, but I think it applies to your edits in the User and Project spaces as well.

For instance, the third characteristic from the bottom is that you find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people. You added unsubstantiated claims about trolling at Misplaced Pages to the article Troll (internet). I reverted, and I left a friendly note on your talk page. Your reply made it clear that you had not read my objection, as you merely repeated your desire to put your thoughts into that page. You then indicated that you would see what the consensus was by taking the discussion to the article's talk page. Once there, the best support you got on that page was moral support from Durova (talk · contribs) who indicated that the objection to your contribution was that it belonged in the project namespace, not the article namespace. I amplified that my objection to your contribution did not specifically improve a general article about internet trolling and that there was a clear See Also link at the very top of the existing article to point people to a Misplaced Pages essay on trolling. Rather than make any attempt to counter the claim that your addition represented original research, you offered the same argument: i.e., Trolling is a problem at Misplaced Pages; therefore my description of it belongs in this article. I cautioned you that your edit might cause a problem with undue weight which is a slippery slope to editing with a point of view. Rather than answer any of the issues of original research, incorrect namespace, undue weight or neutral point of view, you responded with a non-sequitur about notability. After no consensus at all was reached, you being the only one supporting the addition, you indicated you would restore the text to the article anyway. Since it was clear to me that you were going to do what you wanted irrespective of any discussion about it, I suggested you have it spell-checked and then make the edit anyway. So three minutes later, you did put the text in, still with misspellings, an unpiped WP shortcut reference, and a sentence fragment to start the entire section, as you've treated the section header as the beginning of the first sentence. In just two hours, the section was removed by another editor, with an edit summary which briefly touched on the original research and namespace issues. Four days later, still with nothing new to further your case, you again restored your text, with an edit summary indicating that deleting this section should be discussed on the talk page. This is in spite of your having ignored all of what has transpired on the talk page, both specific to this discussion and earlier repeated issues the page has had with additions of original research. Eleven hours later, another editor came along and deleted your contribution, again with a clear edit summary as to the problem with it. He even followed your instructions and commented on the article's talk page adding the issue of verifiability, one of the pillars of Misplaced Pages. What you have done here is also listed in the Characteristics of problem editors: (fifth from bottom) You challenge the reversion of your edits, demanding that others justify it.

The next characteristic I think you possess has to do with the essay you refer to as your masterpiece. Your essay seems to be an example of another of the traits of problem editors (sixth from bottom): You find yourself accusing other editors of censorship, et al. The essay seems to state that there is a problem with some edits and editors--they are using Misplaced Pages as social engineering, which I think means that they are exploiting people's good nature to fool them and make their arguments in underhanded ways. You suggest ways in which one might do that, such as using sockpuppet accounts to astroturf (fake support for a viewpoint from the same source as the original) and refactoring of talk pages in order to make their proposals appear to have greater levels of support than they have. This may well be a serious problem, but the problem with your essay is that it fails to assume good faith.

I am very confused by the intent of your essay. It claims to be humour, and you explain that your essay is self -explanatory even though I have expressed my confusion. What puzzles me further is how you state that your essay addresses a serious problem and should be used to help prevent edit waring, yet you repeatedly assert that it is intended as humour. Oddly, you specifically object to its being called a joke by another editor at my talk page.

I suspect your intentions are made clear when you refer people to the Words of Wisdom, a group of essays meant to be policy while for various reasons did not succeed. In other words, this was never intended to be humour, but you treated it as such, because it was your view of the only way to get it accepted.

Concerning your overall contributions, it surprises me that, as a newer user, you have so many contributions to places such as WP:ANI. You have added inappropriate comments and accusations, offered frivolous solutions, even though you really did not know what was going on in the case. You inhave been incivil in comments to other editors. Back to the list of Characteristics of problem editors (fourth from top), you asked people to assume good faith regarding your actions, when your own accusation was in bad faith. I see that you participate frequently in discussions where you have little knowledge, if any, of the involved parties, just to make inappropriate comments.

After you created the WP shortcut to your essay, your continued comments to ANI were no less inappropriate, but now included links to your essay and cite it as a reason for a block and ban, even though your essay is just that, an essay.

Another concern I have with your edits is the last item in the list of Characteristics of problem editors. You do not carefully thread your posts on talk pages. Of all of your bad habits, this trivial-appearing one is to me still serious. As someone who is quick to rail on the evils of refactoring talk pages and social engineering, you are at a minimum careless with your indent level. When you commented here, you indented each of your following comments, which might lead a reader to think that someone else, such as The undertow (talk · contribs) said the statement in the middle, when in fact you were replying to your own comment. Even when it is unlikely anyone could be confused as to who said what, it is inappropriate to indent a comment one more level right below your own text.

Lastly, you have done some things which are somewhere between disingenuous and dishonest. You awarded two barnstars to editors thanking them for being your inspiration for your essay, crediting your essay inside the barnstar. That's almost like giving a barnstar to yourself. Truly one of the most incredible statements you have made was your claim that you don't try to promote your own contributions when you have left links to your essay all over the project.

I hope that you will take the time to read this. I think I have been fair but firm, citing recent diffs all from the last month. You have claimed that admins support your actions, but I think you are listening just to what you want to hear. I hope you will consider my observations seriously. MKoltnow 00:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)