Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Social engineering Internet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. I was close to choosing to userfy this page, but opted against it due to the possibility that the author will continue to use this page to unwittingly confuse newcomers with, thereby giving them the impression that our actual policies and guidelines on the Wikipedia space are that convoluted, and, let's face it, incoherent. The author really needs to take to heart that no one else but him appears to understand what the page is actually about. If this was an inside joke employing inexplicable humor (which is, of course, the best humor — wit, never heard of rhyme), fine, but it is said to have a serious (albeit satirical) intent, for broad consumption. Not to be uncharitable, but I am hoping this deletion will work toward encouraging the author to communicate more intelligibly to others, with an emphasis on reaching a balance between analytical and syntectical comprehensibility. Because, when one has a piece which only they understand, no matter how noble or brilliant the underlying idea may be, it becomes no more than an exercise in solipsism. Thx for reading. El_C 09:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Social engineering Internet

This is obviously supposed to be an essay on social engineering. What isn't so clear is whether this essay is specific to Wikipedia. It makes multiple mentions of "malware", which, being a type of software, doesn't seem to have anything to do with Wikipedia. There is some mention of anonymous users and sockpuppets, but otherwise this doesn't seem to be advice tailored for Wikipedia users. The advice itself is also not too clear -- most of the time I'm not exactly sure what courses of action this essay is suggesting. Also, this is tagged as humor, but doesn't seem to be intended as a joke at all. While an essay on social engineering as it relates to Wikipedia might be valuable, this really isn't it, and isn't salvageable to that end, in my opinion. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:54, 29 Feb 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete The author seems to intend this to be, or to become, some sort of policy which it clearly cannot be because it doesn't make any sense. While the author has also called it a joke at times, it's difficult to see what the humor is in this. I agree that malware is software and has nothing to do with the human action of "social engineering." Thus it is not a joke/guideline/or policy and has no place on Wiki. --Veritas (talk) 21:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • This is not a joke but sarcasam. And if you are saying there is no social engineering on Wikipedia than you are very wrong. I was not the one who coined the term Malware for social engineering but a McAfee security analyst did. Igor Berger (talk) 21:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
      • There is such a thing as "social engineering malware" but that still refers to a type of software. If social engineering exists on Wikipedia, it would just be plain social engineering -- as in, engineering purely through communication. And whether or not such a thing occurs on Wikipedia is questionable. You seem to have nothing but good intentions, Igor, so I feel bad doing this; but your zeal for offering advice seems to far outweigh your actual knowledge. I mean no offense. My advice is that you should probably spend more time editing articles and gaining experience and perhaps wait until people ask for your advice, before you try to give that advice and shape the community. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:40, 29 Feb 2008 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the advice. Igor Berger (talk) 21:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
        • You might want to try consulting the definition of "sarcasm." Interesting though that there is actually a thing known as "social engineering malware." Not too keen on the lexicon of technology particularly when it distorts complicated sociological concepts.--Veritas (talk) 22:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Malware is not necessary just in terms of software. It can be in terms of people and ideas as history has shown. Sarcasam is in the eyes of the beholder. Igor Berger (talk) 22:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete There are two substantial problems with this essay. Firstly as adequately described by the nominator User:Equazcion and then seconded by User:Veritas & User:Father Goose the article is not clear; doesn't make any sense, and is too incoherent to have any use.
Secondly, and more importantly, the essay is being used to disrupt wikipedia because the author insists on SPAM promoting the essay on each and every occasion he can create such an opportunity. Towards that point - and the substantial disruption that is the result of that SPAMMING I note the following information and then provide a few examples:
The article was created on January 30 - and 'fine tuned' to its current state the next day, January 31 [1]. The author spent time canvassing a number of admins for support & added templates and comments in various places as if it had wide support.
From the next day, February 1, the author commenced putting links to the article on numerous user pages and more significantly adding it as if it were some sort of policy or official guideline at ANI. Examples as follows:
  1. He notes in an ANI thread that there is No need for block, we do not want to WP:BITE. Please read WP:SEI and next time think really hard before claiming such. [2]
  2. He notes in another ANI thread that he recommend[s] a 24 hour block for User:Wfgh66 and then a 30 day bann to run consecative. This user is engaging in WP:SEI and WP:Disruptive [3]
  3. He links the essay into other long standing essays as if WP:SEI is similarly accepted to WP:ABF [4]
  4. By the next day February 2 a number of editors went to the author via his own talk page and other pages including here and asked him questions concerning the meaning and veracity of the article, and why he was SPAMMING the article. The author agreed not to SPAM the article again - stating I am not Spamming but wanted to see how the essay worked in real life. My test is finished so I have no reason to show it around as I did before.
The author then went on holidays for 3 weeks and upon returning immediately began his actions again - with examples and further discussion including:
  1. He noted in an ANI thread Is this a joke? User:The Community should read WP:SEI. We have no bosses and no secreteries! [5]
  2. He was again asked to stop SPAMMING the essay because it disrupted Wikipedia. He chose to adjust his agreement rather than stick to the original as detailed above.
  3. On February 29 - 3 days after the second agreement not to SPAM he went to Equazcion's page and dropped another uncalled for link to the page stating Have a read at my essay WP:SEI Maybe you will find it useful. [6].
Given all of the above I strongly support the calls for deletion of this essay.--VS talk 01:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    • VirtualSteve I did not use the essay in a Spammy way, that is your predisposed interpertation of the events. Right or wrong it is your opion to which you are intitled to. And being that you are an involved admin I would like to ask an univolved admin to make the deletion if the consensus has been determined so.
    • Also I did follow your advice and stopped posting the essay to ANI, because of respect for you as an editor. But when I did post it to ANI with regards to User:Wfgh66 the user was complaining of social engineering by the community against him, so I sarcastically pointed him to the essay. That user was blocked indef. Sticking to our agreement not to post to ANI I asked User:Equazcion to look at the essay. He brought it here to MfD which he has a right to do and I have no objection of him bringing here for review.
    • Lastly, the essay is marked for deltion not me. How I edit is something else and the place to discuss it is not MfD. Some editors may agree with my WP:BOLD others do not. But that is what makes Wikipedia as to what it is. We all come from different backgrounds and have different way of thinking. I do appreciate your input on how I edit, but it is your input which some of it I heed to and other I do not. I do not want to become you but be who I am.

Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - People can post spam links to anything, including established policies. The author's actions outside of authoring the essay, disruptive as they might be (and I don't make any judgments either way on that), aren't the topic of this discussion. That's something to bring up at ANI. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:17, 1 Mar 2008 (UTC)
  • [EC]Comment Igor - Please try and be reasonable about this - your essay makes no sense so we can not interpret the reading of it by any other editor as either not reading or not "learning the point" - because as many editors have now told you WP:SEI has no obvious point. Furthermore you were asked and agreed not to SPAM a link to this joke essay anywhere - not just to ANI - but you broke that agreement. Finally I do not make any comment about your editing style and I certainly do not as you put it wish to seek you deleted? - BUT I do provide the community with clear examples of your disrupting wikipedia with links to WP:SEI and as you know many have asked why you continue to do that; many have asked you to stop and it is just now that User:Equazcion has acted in a way that many others have suggested was likely to occur if you continued with your SPAM links. I should note that Miscellany for deletion can be further predicated by the use of that miscellany for disruption. Finally I can't help but agree with the sentiments of Equazcion above where he says that whilst you may have good intentions ... your zeal for offering advice seems to far outweigh your actual knowledge --VS talk 02:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I created the essay to contribute to Wikipedia community knowledge. The essay maybe good or maybe bad as any article. The Wikipedia community determines if the essay is to become part of Wikipedia or not. I have no problem with that as I have no problem with regards to any article I create. There is no ownership in Wikipedia. As far as my intentions are conserned please WP:AGF on my part unless I show overwise. Igor Berger (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Understood! VirtualSteve does not wish to delete Igorberger ..:) Igor Berger (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. This really is just word salad, as others have said. That in itself would be fine for a userpage of an active contributor, but it's not acceptable in project space. Further, as has also been noted, the creator (and, essentially, the sole person with any interest in the page) cannot seem to resist mentioning it as suggested reading any time he comments to another editor. He has done this despite multiple editors informing him that they see it as disruptive, so it's reasonable to assume he will continue indefinitely unless this page is deleted - hence, while I would normally suggest userfying this sort of comment, I don't believe that solution will work in this case. As a side note, I would note to Igor Berger that when multiple people independently characterize your actions as disruptive, that is prima facie evidence that disruption has occurred. I strongly urge the editor in question to consider what that means. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I am sorry I have nothing against you deleting an anrticle based on its merit, but to delete an article because it is being used same like WP:ABF WP:AGF WP:NPOV We use these articles very often ourselves but we do not call them Spam and we do not call Jimbo or who ever other peson who has first created the article disruptive. I have created the article as a semi policy of what behavior should not be on Wikipedia. It is in the same light as WP:ABF. But to many of you it seems I have created the article to be disruptive. Judge the article on its merits and please stop judging me. Can the article be improved? Do the issues raised in the article are notable? So please WP:AGF and comment on the content not the person. Igor Berger (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Um, those are actually policies and guidelines. SEI is neither. --Veritas (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Exactly! How does an article become a policy or a guideline if not written by editors first and approved by consensus. Let's not try to WP:STEAM an unpopular issue which clearly exists in rampant on Wikipedia. Igor Berger (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry Igor but it's really not clear at all that it exists on Wikipedia. Even if it did, it wouldn't be an "unpopular issue". No one is trying to shut you up because they don't want to deal with the issue -- they just doubt the issue actually exists, or that your essay helps solve the problem. And, there is a difference between constantly linking to an essay you wrote yourself, and referring to an established policy in an argument. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:56, 1 Mar 2008 (UTC)
            • I am not constantly linking to it, but I linked to it a few times to measure consensus. What is good if you trying to create a policy type of article but you do not rely on policy and do not use it. I brought it to you in the first place because you are always in the middle of POV disputes and I figured your input on SEI would be valued. There are quite a few areas that the SEI exists if not intentionally but by coincidence. Abortion, Israel Palestian, waterboarding, pseudoscience and science, Japan Korea. You are very well aware how it is all being treated from ANI to AE and other boards. Should we just say there is no SEI because it is unpopular and not politically correct thing to say? It would be interesting and benificial if we can get some input of uninvolved admins about this article. Igor Berger (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
              • Also as a vandal patrolman it is very disheartening that we have to spend many hours and a lot of energy fighting and preventing abuse to Wikipedia by anong and socks who many probably are regular editors who are part of the social engineering for what ever reasons, and I am not hear to judge, but bring light to the issue. This is why SEI is Malware, it is Malware to Wikipedia because it is hurting and destorying the project. In order to fix the grave problem of vandalism at Wikipedia we first have to identify the root cause of the problem. This way we can come up with a stratigic solution not just plaster and bandaids, which do not work. The wholes on Wikipedia ship are rrampant and wide. Many great editors are jumping ship or being pushed gently over board through wikilawyering and slow and painful ArbCom. The process of dealing with SEI on Wikipedia is like any SEI example Israel and Palestain problem, if not identified and dealt with the dangers are grave. Lets not be the fool and WP:STEAM - stonewall this unpopular issue just because we do not want to identify ourselves with it. Igor Berger (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
                • I should probably not be wasting my breath with this. I don't know if this a language barrier issue or what. But this has nothing to do with political correctness or steamrolling. What you're saying just doesn't make any sense. I don't even think you've got the right definition for the term "social engineering", or for quite a few other terms you're throwing around. Anyway, I'll just let others chime in on this whenever they get around to it, as this exchange seems to be a waste of time. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:03, 2 Mar 2008 (UTC)
                  • I am sorry my job is a security analyst for PHSDL and I do know what I am talking about when it comes to Malware and social engineering, but my qualifications are not being questioned, here now, but the article wikification and relevence to Wikipedia are been discussed. Igor Berger (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
                    • Actually, it seems as if you are PHSDL, period [7], and that your company page claims that Wikipedia has "validated" the software you promote[8]. You're treading on the thin edge of G11 spam here. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) PHSDL is a Malware Spam honeypot and I am not promoting it. It collects Malware Spam domains, catalogues and offers an anti Malware Spam filter. It is non for profit project and I get no salary from it. I offer my knowledge that I retained from running the project to SpamAssassin, Google, Stopbadware, AboutUs, and even Wikipedia all on volunteer bases. I just mentioned the name in passing by to make reference to my security skills. I even joined the Wikipedia Spam project on request of project admin User:A. B.. I tried to make a PHSDL article when I first joined Wikipedia, that was before thousands of anti vandal edits that I made, but it was CSD. User:A. B.. even recommend that I do the article again but I said I rather someone else do it because I did not want to show WP:COI. You can make reference to this effect hereUser_talk:Igorberger/21-november-2007-01-january-2008#88.232.163.140. You mentioning G11 is not relevent to PHSDL because there is no self promotion of PHSDL. And this is about WP:SEI not PHSDL. If and when PHSDL article is brought for deletion review you can make your judgment about it there. Igor Berger (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Actually Igor please read this link again - they did not recommend you to write it (this is a manipulation of their words out of context) - as I read the thread you were adding unwanted material related here and elsewhere concerning PHSDL because you had a belief that WikiPedia is under attack by social engineering malware and other editors responded by asking you to Please wait until there is consensus before adding this information again.... Indeed the link you have just provided gives us some more clues in relation to the very important point being made above by Gavia immer that you are spamming the system - as obviously you are promoting PHDSL and you claim (without any authority that I can find) that "PHSDL has been authenticated per Wikipedia.org" when in fact it appears that you have reversed this recommendation by PHSDL (your own business) to Wikipedia. I agree with Gavia immer that you are treading on very thin ice and that this essay is probably a G11 Speedy Deletion item.--VS talk 21:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I have asked User:Durova to comment on this because this is getting out of hand. VirtualSteve you are making this into an ANI thread about me and about PHSDL not about SEI essay. You are too inolved in this because your predisposed views of me, and it looks like you are grasping every straw to have me indicted. Igor Berger (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Nonsense Igor you brought up PHSDL not me and you linked it to your reason for creation of SEI. I responded to your inaccuracies which is mine and other editors rights. Also as you know I consider you a friend - and have said so many times to you but that doesn't mean that policy and process should not be followed or disallow me to disagree with you.--VS talk 21:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
    • It was not a personal attack here but stating the fact on how I feel. If you wish to refactor the discussion to make it POV in your favor you are doing it over my objection As I recommended that you are to involved with me to make an NPOV decission. Igor Berger (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I'll also note that the website for this supposed company lists Wikipedia as a "project." [9]. I hope this doesn't cause legal issues, but this should probably also be brought up at ANI. --Veritas (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Varitas thank you for your unbaised and level headed opinion. I agree and if at ANI it is determined that my reference from PHSDL to Wikipedia is inapropreate I have no problems removing that reference. But this is not the place to discuss this because we are talking about the validity of SEI article essay. Igor Berger (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Userfy. Wikipedia has a lot of essays that mean a lot to the particular editor who wrote them but that don't get much general traffic. Igor Berger put a lot of work into this and he's proud of it. Might as well let him have it in his user space. DurovaCharge! 23:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
    • User Durova thank you for your understanding and clear judgment. Igor Berger (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd support this solution. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:16, 2 Mar 2008 (UTC)
      • I oppose userfying this per Gava's comments above. He is unlikely to stop linking to this mess if it is userfied. If it is deleted, then linking is not possible. --Veritas (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I also oppose this solution as per Gavia's comments and Veritas' point above. I also note that there is plenty of material on wikipedia that is deleted whether miscellany or other mainspace that editor's are proud of but that is not sufficient reason to keep especially where the editor in this case is disrupting wikipedia by linking to the article inappropriately as described above.--VS talk 23:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
          • SEI is a very important issue, especially on Wikipedia because WP suppose to be NPOV. Maybe my essay is not written appropreatly and needs to be modified, even have some of this discussion added to it. But to say there is no SEI and no SEI on Wikipedia is totally wrong and false. And by saying this we are saying that SEI does exist on Wikipedia because we are impossing silence on unpopular issue that is very relevent to the project. Why was there no SEI article before I created this essay? There is still no SEI article in main space. Is there no social engineering on the Internet? Think very hard before you deside. Igor Berger (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
          • VirtualSteve if anybody does something not in agreement with your POV you call it disrupt? If anybody does something not in agreement of popular point of view you call it disrupt? You are very quick to invoke WP:CIVIL to mute an unpopular view, that is what SEI is about. And by your actions you are supporting that SEI exists on Wikipedia. Igor Berger (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
          • This is not my POV Igor - it is the POV of almost all of the persons who have commented on this MfD.--VS talk 23:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Convenience break

Perhaps we could get Igor to agree that if the essay is userfied, he wouldn't post links to it in any public namespace. Would that satisfy everyone? Equazcion •✗/C • 23:32, 2 Mar 2008 (UTC)

  • Sorry Equazcion but I do not support. Normally I would but Igor has been asked many times not to link and he has on every occasion twisted and turned and then continued to link and to disrupt wikipedia with those links.--VS talk 23:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • In that case, wouldn't a reasonable solution be to have Igor agree not to repeat these actions again, or he risks a long block? That's frequently used to resolve disputes. I would support userfying the material provided that Igor promise not to post links to it in any public namespace. Enigma msg! 00:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually I can support a similar proposal but rather than a long block - an immediate block which escalates if or when he links in the mainspace or on talk pages. On that basis creation of a user page and removal from the material in mainspace to say User:Igorberger/Social engineering internet essay is from my perspective a reasonable way to stop the disruption and allow Igorberger to be "proud" of his essay.--VS talk 01:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • A block seems excessive, but how about simply if he violates the condition, the page gets speedily deleted? A block wouldn't be necessary then. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:14, 3 Mar 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry a long block, if I do not promise not to talk about SEI? Is this not cohersion? We are talking about an essay that I have written not how I edit and what I am allowed to say or not. I think if you have an issue with me talking about SEI you better bring it to ArbCom. So I do not agree with you proposal at all. If the essay can be userfied then good if not it should be deleted per consensus. Igor Berger (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you'd be able to talk about the issue itself, just not link to the page. Would you agree not to link to the page, or else the page gets immediately deleted? Equazcion •✗/C • 01:24, 3 Mar 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry again if you wish to delete the esay delete it but I will not agree to blocks based on an essay. You will need to bring the issue to ANI or another relevent board for of conseus of needing a block. Igor Berger (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I didn't mention a block -- I said the essay would get moved to your userspace, but deleted if you linked to it again. That is, the essay would get deleted if you linked to it again. You would not be blocked. Would you agree to that? Equazcion •✗/C • 01:27, 3 Mar 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm unsure of the legality of your solution Equazcion. Clearly if he disrupts by linking blocking is possible and those continued disruptions can lead to escalating blocks but Speedy Delete is only available if the article is of a CSD category and thus if it is now (or when userfied) then it should be speedily deleted now or then. I also note that Igor is himself not interested in this solution and has twisted the wording suggestion of Enigma by referring to talking about SEI (rather than what Enigma meant which was linking to the essay) - and I can not help but wonder as to the motive - because if he does not intend to link to the essay he would not have any fear of any block??? I also note that the previous concerns raised by other editors relating to Igor's conflict of interest in some edits and have as he suggested it raised the matter at ANI here.--VS talk 01:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Legality? I think in order to question legality you'd need to lawyer. We discourage that sort of thing here. We don't have laws, we have rules, and they can be broken. I think given the circumstances this is a good way to solve the issue. Don't you? I mean, ignoring the fact that policy doesn't support it, wouldn't this be a good idea? Equazcion •✗/C • 01:31, 3 Mar 2008 (UTC)
      • If I link to it and when I link to should it not be brought here again and made proper justificaion for its deletion. For example if I come to your page and ask you for some input on the esay based on some new information I have edited or another editor wishes to join me editing the essay should it be deleted based on that action without any discussion as to what I am doing? Igor Berger (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[outdented for readability] No I mean "legality" in relation to the deletion policy that confronts us as Admins - we can't just decide that something gets speedily deleted if it is linked - that is my understanding but I'd be happy to your view if it is different.01:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Okay I appreciate Igor's views here - on that basis I revert my agreement to a compromise and suggest again deletion of this essay.--VS talk 01:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I am willing to abide by deletion policy if userfied. Igor Berger (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec):You wouldn't be deleting it because he linked to it. You'd be deleting it because Igor violated a deal we made. But if admins are unable to wrap their heads around the concept of working outside of policy then you're right, this can't work. But it really should, IAR and all. We should be doing what's best for the situation, despite the "letter of the law", as it were. But now seeing Igor's refusal, I guess the decision is made. The only choice is to delete the page now, I think. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:38, 3 Mar 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed - I think deletion is the only solution.--VS talk 01:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I am not refusing to have it userfied but it should not be cohersed with a block. I want to keep working and building the essay because I belive the topic is important. But how can I do it if I am told do not link to it at all? Linking to it from ANI I long time ago promised to VirtualSteve not to do and I have not broken my promise. But I percieve that VS does not want me to dicuss the essay at all, and I do not want to put myself in jeopardy to be blocked. Igor Berger (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree with VS. Given the refusal to agree to a condition, deletion is the only option remaining. Enigma msg! 02:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Like I said, I have no problem with having the article essay moved to user space, and I have no intention linking to it from any policy pages or linking to the essay from ANI or any other policy enforcement board. I would like to continue develeping the essay and may ask other editors to contribute to it or/and their opinions on it. The keeping of the esay in user space should not be contingent on my editing behavior but an independednt issue. If the esay is not relevent to Wikipedia which I believe it is, it should be deleted. My behavior is something else and should be handled in its appropriate way when and how it happens. If I keep posting the link in ANI which I promise not to do, you can always start an ANI thread about my editng, and have other editors comment and decide by consesus as to what to do. I do not see why the keeping of the essay in user space has to be contingent on a block if the essay link is Spammed or used inappropriatly. Is such enforcement legal with regards to Wikipedia policies? I have never heard of a rule that states one can write an article but they cannot link to it. And should this even be decided at WP:MFD? So I hope I have made my case clear for the essay article. Igor Berger (talk) 06:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with comments made by Steve and Veritas. Normally I'd be fine with userfying but Igor's behaviour with the links etc makes it completely untenable. Delete please. Sarah 10:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Per VS - Seems to serve no function to the encyclopaedia and is causing too many issues by remaining in mainspace. It seems it is being used to suggest to outside clients of the creator that he "consults to Wikipedia", which creates all manner of issues. Orderinchaos 16:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I have changed the wording on my Websites to reflect the community conserns as to not make it look like I am working or consulting for Wikipedia. Sorry for the confusion created. here and here Igor Berger (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
      • First link doesn't work. EDIT: OK, I fixed it. Enigma msg! 23:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Also, PHSDL is a free service that I provide to bloggers and forum owners to fight Zlob Trojan Malware Spam. I get no monetary benifit to promote the Website. Igor Berger (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi Igor as per your request/knowledge the PHSDL matter is not a part of this MfD. I have responded to these last few edits by you at this ANI thread--VS talk 10:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Now if I could only find a volunteer programmer to keep developing PHSDL I would be happy. I am too busy on Wikipedia to keep building the project that I do not get any money from. Lots of volunteer work. Good Karma..:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorberger (talk • contribs) 11:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Userify as an essay in user space this would seem unexceptional--it does not recommend any action which is against our policy. Everything said about how to work on WP. DGG (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Userify Almost all the satrical essays I observedare mostly around the userspace area. It serves a better solution than deletion as Durova pointed out. PrestonH 03:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment All I can say if I behave distructively or Spam the article, which I do not intend to do, I should be brought to ANI or RfC to determine my behavior by consensus, not delete the article. We do not go around deleting Wikipedia articles just because someone references to them in a Spammy or distrucive fashion. If we delete articles from Wikipedia based on editors behavior then it would be nothing less than censorship not uphold of NPOV. An article stands on its own merit not contingent on editor's behavior. So I request that the article essay be userified. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment to closing admin Parts of this matter were brought up at ANI at Igorberger's request. Despite this Igorberger has refused to accept a request by editors that he remove COI issues related to this essay from his personal websites, even though he said he would act on those requests. He has also on many occasions said he would not SPAM the essay anywhere on wiki - with emphasis being on the word SPAM (rather than discuss) - and the occasions he has said that follow requests by other editors to cease the activity. He also is unwilling to come to any sort of agreement related to similar requests during the discussion of this MfD - and on that basis it is difficult to believe his newly stated intentions. Disruptive behaviour repeated over and over again when requests over and over again to cease have been agreed to and then denied, will eventually lead to the community failing to accept arguments by those disruptive editors to listen to their good faith principles. I'm sorry but Igorberger has reached that stage for many editors, including myself and so his denial of the link between his editorial behaviour and userfication of his essay is impossible to accept. Towards that fact I repeat my suggestion for the sake of absolute clarity and request deletion. Best wishes--VS talk 20:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
      • VirtualSteve if you so adamantly believe of me as not having genuine intentions and this essay is userified, and if I would Spam Wikipedia with links to it and apply it in disruptive way, would it not be in the interest of your intentions? By bringing the matter to ANI at that time you can prove your POV and get a consensus to support your POV against me? Because right now you do not seem to have a consesus about what your are claiming. Your COI acussation of me at ANI was closed by you without reaching a decission that I have COI. But you keep implying that I do. Show the community that I have COI with regards to my edit history. Show the community that I am disruptive. But by muting and suppressing this essay and the topic of the article you are depriving yourself evidence and opportunity to prove me as a bad editor. But what ever the outcome I would respect it and just go on edit other articles. I do not believe in OWNERSHIP. I as a NPOV editor am conserned about Wikipedia not about promoting one article over an other. If the essay is deleted I would not try to recriate it in the form it is now. The social engineering Internet does exist and it is a prominent issue, but this essay deals with SEI on Wikipedia that is why it makes the issue controversial. Claiming that I have COI because I am a software engineer and an anti-spam evangalist that is very wrong. Because I know about the industry I can write about the topic. This topic is very technical and requires knowledge beyond a layman. VirtualSteve I would advice you not to be fixated on me and not to canvas your POV. Anyway time to move on. Igor Berger (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Okay, I think this unnecessarily lengthy discussion has dragged on long enough. Can someone please just close this, as it's been about 6 days now? Equazcion •✗/C • 22:08, 5 Mar 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Father Goose. There is no coherent argument made in this essay. The creator has described it both as important reading and sarcasm/satire. It may be well-intentioned, but it is basically a bunch of WP links to assorted policies and guidelines that can be cited singly. MKoltnow 23:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Userfy unless/until connection to Wikipedia is clarified. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.