User talk:Mistress Selina Kyle

Disclaimer: Any opinions expressed are mine and do not represent the opinion of Wikipedia Review unless otherwise specified — please do not raise any issues about WR with me on Wikipedia

A kitteh for you! Dianna has given you an evil attack kitteh! Evil attack kittehs help promote wiki-love and protect your talk page from trollish elements. Dianna (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beware! This user's talk page is patrolled by talk page prowlers.[1] Some of them even talk back.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Click to start a new talk topic Α⇔Ω

Click to email ⇒✉

WP:5P HD-Rosetta#Rosetta_Project Memento mori [1]  [2]  [3]  [4] — Plees to be more funding Neuroscience, Nanobiotechnology, Nanotechnology Maybe Cryonics Institute

Welcome back. Rich Farmbrough, 00:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 07:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop tagging accounts as socks of anyone, please. That is not appropriate behaviour for someone trying to stay out of trouble, particularly when you get some of them wrong. Further, don't tag IP addresses. Risker (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are other IP addresses that were tagged already sorry, I thought you are meant to have them all added? How are you meant to keep track of the ones not attached to accounts for future checking if you don't add them to the category?

BTW, I've just been screamed at as an "anti-SOPA zealot" for trying to help you - he is from the Comcast Corporation marketing department[2] as well, I didn't realise before but I was checking into abuse of other stuff and found out.

It is kinda disappointing how no one else apparently bothered to look through the article history (I am sure the only one I got wrong was Giggle, that was because he made a load of minor edits to it, I said sorry to PS after doublechecking and found a conflicting edit that proved he was right it's not a sock) and find all those sock edits that look pretty real to me, and most of them weren't even blocked, let alone tagged My big question to you is, if you didn't spot those, how many sockpuppets are there working for but not giving it away by editing own article? I have joined the Paid Advocacy Watch because of this. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 16:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several of them are wrong. Please revert yourself and remove the tags. Risker (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will do it because you are intimidating me about it, but this is not right... I just had a look at the Template:Sockpuppet to look for what the rules were and it does seem I was wrong to use that template and you're right there, but shouldn't the other one go on them instead? Anyway, I'll do it now but I hope you don't just ignore that stuff? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 17:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is intimidating you. Remove the tags please, as you have no basis on which to attach them other than that those IPs and accounts have edited a particular article. Risker (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

bleh well you made me feel intimidated enough to run and revert them against policy, it's done I hope you're happy, I did check the contributions before tagging any of them and was careful not to tag some users in the history, this wasn't an indiscriminate thing - there are just that many socks, and that's only the ones silly enough to edit its own article I notice that there weren't any corporate edits on any of the ones attached with the article, so there are obviously a lot of accounts you don't know about... WP:PAIDWATCH is a call for action and this should be a wakeup call, seriously, read it "You are making up some kind of new principle if you think some principle of Wikipedia requires that we ignore a problem that can be solved.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)"[reply]

You don't need to go around reverting everything I said just because of this, I just saw your edits on WP:PAIDWATCH (not self promotion because my account is totally anonymous like Wikipedia Review article says, and the site itself runs on donations, mostly from me...), but I am not going to fight with you... I am guessing you are still angry at me about this, but, seriously, everyone should be on the same side on this... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 17:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've hardly reverted everything you said, please do not exaggerate. Placing links to the website you have stated (on numerous occasions) that you own is not appropriate. On your user page, fine. Elsewhere, no. You're also inappropriately ascribing motives; please do not continue doing that. Nobody Ent has given you good advice. Risker (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry when I said going around deleting it seemed like you were just starting to delete more, I had just saw that edit, that's what i meant - have you noticed since you and Toddst1's conflict with the signpost[3] about Surturz feeling pressurrised to remove your names from the Baseball Bugs story and he complained that Toddst1 then went and started deleting his pages, he hasn't logged on since? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 18:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not your job or my job or anyone else's job to fix all of Wikipedia. It's just too darn big. So don't feel compelled to address any but the most urgent or blatant violations. There's no doubt in my mind that there are many undetected socks on Wikipedia but that doesn't keep me from sleeping very well at night. If they're so good at behaving themselves that no one detects that's bad thing because ... ? It's been strongly suggested your stay out of the Wikipedia back alleys -- in other words try to stick to main article space. If you do run across suspicious activity / possible socking or start getting into a content dispute just add note to the bottom of your talk page and some (talk page stalker) will take a look. If you end up at ANI again you're probably just done. I ain't gonna pretend it's right or fair but I know it just is. Nobody Ent 18:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know I can't do everything myself but you saying that I should just ignore anything? I was told the original unban conditions applied which were to follow policy and listen to the advice of my mentor, I think I did what any other Wikipedian should have done really?just not many people apparently bothered to look at the history much (it wasn't just the IPs missing, there were a few sockpuppets tagged as sockpuppets of sockuppets, and ones listed on the banned page but not tagged at all... It was like someone was just playing whack a mole without looking at it carefully from the outside and noticing the things I did) I hope WP:PAIDWATCH has a chance at least --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 18:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're not any other user. What did Volunteer Marek recommend you do about the sockpuppet situation? Nobody Ent 18:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he's on at the moment one problem might be that my timezones can be varied and rarely US :s maybe a european meantor too could be cool, marek is cool though too --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 18:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am in a European time zone, so I am more likely to be active when Volunteer Marek is offline. If you think something might even be slightly controversial, as the taggings turned out to be, don't hesitate to ask someone for their advice/opinion first before going ahead with it. Acalamari 19:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As indicated above, it would be a good idea to not engage with controversial issues such as tagging socks or linking to WR (someone strongly connected with a website should not promote that site here). When editors in good standing post suggestions here, why not take their advice with some kind of "ok" message? BTW while some people archive their user talk page by moving the page to an archive, that is not generally done with article talk pages. For example, Talk:MyWikiBiz now has no wikiproject or previous-AfD boxes because they are in the archive—I doubt if the wikiprojects are important for that page and I don't mind them being removed, but it is not standard procedure. No tea for me thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to let you know I left a response on Philippe's Talk page King4057 (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

The Neverhood (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bill Brown

Websense (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sex Education

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool bot

File:Mr Blobby.jpg

this is how I would make a robot look like if I made a robot --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 11:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that bot scares me a little - reminds me of the Stanford Christmas tree mascot somehow - prolly the lips. Thanks for the laugh! Cheers, --JaGa^talk 20:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

why is london a beautiful city? because bee venom

standford is that place where googles live right.

--Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it seems that you are well past three reverts on Websense. While I'm a fan of BRD as well, BRD isn't an excuse to continue to revert, especially when the discussion part of the process is ongoing. 3RR is not about being right or wrong with your changes, so much as trying to make conflicts manageable.

I guess you'll need to make a choice on how to proceed, but I'm afraid it is enough of a problem that it will need to be raised on the 3RR noticeboard if you choose to continue along this path, and given the conditions of your unblock I can't see that ending well. - Bilby (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mistress Selina Kyle, I would definitely stop reverting at this point...and you should possibly consider even reverting your most recent revert; instead, continue to discuss the article on its talk page and come to a resolution. Honestly, this is not something worth getting blocked over, and you have been improving and doing a lot of good recently: don't give anyone itching to have you reblocked the chance to have your ban re-instated. Acalamari 13:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already did stop reverting though I was trying to have a discussion and he kept reverting me, so I reverted those back 3 times if you look carefully at the history I remembered the 3 rule and didn't do it more than that? my first edit was a revert of a sockpuppet (Clevea and related accounts of Websense) which it specifically says is excluded --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you hit five reverts overall, ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) so even the IP proves to be a sockpuppet, you will still have passed 3RR. I'm with Acalamari in that I'd prefer not to see you blocked over something as pointless as Websense, which is why I wanted to raise it with you, but you will need to be more careful. - Bilby (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good, I'm glad you have decided to stop reverting; and yes, if the first revert was to revert a sock, that one is exempt. My comment here wasn't meant as an "official" warning from me to block you, but rather a piece of advice to prevent you from having a 3RR report filed on you that would end up resulting in you being blocked. Be aware, however, that 3RR is not a hard limit, and users can still be blocked for edit warring, rather than for breaking a 3-revert limit.

Finally, for Bilby, the "itching to have you reblocked" part of my comment to Selina was not directed at you or anyone else involved in the dispute. When I re-read my initial comment, I thought it might come across that way, but I can assure you that it wasn't. Best to all here. Acalamari 14:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No hassles. I understood what you meant. :) I understand the circumstances, which is why I wanted to raise things here rather than something more formal. - Bilby (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Perhaps there has been some confusion. 3 ≠ 5.

1. You say that your first revert was of a sockpuppet; let's be clear about that. [9]
2. I fixed some POV / OR / SYNTH; you hit the revert button. [10]
3. I tried removing the problematic content again; you hit the revert button [11]
4. Bilby undid your revert, trying to fix the POV; you reverted that too. [12]
5. Not wanting to get entangled in 3RR, I tried fixing some other - separate problems in the article, including more POV and misuse of sources; you hit revert again. [13]

How many does that add up to? I don't want drama, so I'm giving you a chance to self-revert, instead of getting this problem fixed at WP:AN3. bobrayner (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) (arghhh god so annoying) @Acalamari/Bilby Ok sorry that I went one over (4 not 5 because you don't include the sockpuppet I am 100% sure that was a sockpuppet if you look at the investigation page even without checkuser it's so obvious when you line all the edits up) sorry I should have kept track better I think just got carried away, it was annoying that I was trying to do the right thing by having a discussion on the talk page like you are supposed to and he was just ignoring it and reverting anyway, it seemed like they were just paying lipservice to how you are actually supposed to do it, sorry.

I'll just leave it alone the sockpuppet investigation stil needs to be done too, I am 100% that the first one was sockpuppets even without checkuse because as I noted in the investigation when you put the edits together it's so sooo obvious --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 14:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Threatening AN3 is inconsistent with not wanting drama. Nobody Ent 14:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) (scream)

@br: Nobody Ent has since edited the article I noticed trying to do a compromise it looks like, I think if I go and revert that to my version that would definitely definitely be against the rules? I have no idea anymore --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 14:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the version Bobrayner wants you to revert to is this one, and unless I am mistaken (someone please correct me on this if I am wrong...before Mistress Selina Kyle makes any decision to revert herself), you reverting to that version would not count as edit-warring as you would be reverting yourself, and Nobody Ent's compromise is a result of your recent edit (however, reverting Nobody Ent's edit back to your own edit would be a very bad idea, to say the least). However, as blocks are supposed to be prevantative rather than punitive, I don't believe any blocks are necessary (for anyone who was reverting on that page) now that no one has reverted another for about two hours, so I don't think bringing this to AN3 would be a good idea. Acalamari 14:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops I mean if I revert to the version before my version, sorry got mixed up, looks like you answered that as well though I think —Ok I'll just stay away sorry, I wish whoever has to deal with the sockpuppet investigation good luck because it looked like a right web of sliminess :/ --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 14:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're "trying to do the right thing", a good start would be to return to some more neutral content - that is, content which actually reflects what sources say. What do you think? (One could argue that "doing the right thing" should also include striking out ad hominems and lies, but I don't want to set the bar unrealistically high; I'm more interested in the content than the drama) bobrayner (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, I wouldn't want to give mixed messages. Other people have advised you to walk away rather than edit; if that means article improvements no longer get reverted, I'd be happy with that outcome too. bobrayner (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to censor criticism is not "improvements" by any definition.... You are the one that kept attacking me, as anyone looking on Talk:Websense can see with stuff like "point out that software is used at guantanamo bay? Ooh, it must be evil, it's used at guantanamo bay!"

Then started and kept reverting rather than discussing, despite being told about WP:BRD, that is far worse, it's not meant to be "what you can get away with" whilst paying lipservice to the idea behind the rules, the ones that aren't fixed are just as important...

I am going back to Talk:Websense where discussion should have been in the first place if you hadn't deliberately started edit warring... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 16:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop lying and misrepresenting me. Please stop. bobrayner (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Why are you calling me a liar? That was a direct quote from the page, as anyone can see if they look at talk:Websense --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 23:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mistress Selina Kyle. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Silverseren^C 22:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied - and noted that this is the only message I have ever received from you, when the page says at the very top that you are meant to try resolve issues by talking with people civilly rather than using the board as a "dramaboard" which is showing contempt for the good people that try to seriously mediate or debate on issues they disagree with... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 23:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mistress! Response on my Talk page. King4057 (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mistress. Hopefully I'm adequately articulating where you take issue with the article over on the CREWE Talk page? I'm just trying to be helpful, though I'm sure I just sealed the deal on ever getting a job at any PR agency participating in CREWE ;-) King4057 (talk) 07:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mistress. I thought you might want to check out my suggestions on the Talk page and see if you felt that would make the article more balanced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Corporate_Representatives_for_Ethical_Wikipedia_Engagement — Preceding unsigned comment added by King4057 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Claire Thomson?

There is a Paid Editor Watch section of Wikiproject Cooperation. There was unanimous support that the project also help police bad actors (in addition to working with the good guys). Could be a good effort for you to contribute to (diplomatically) if you're interested.

The Paid Advocacy Watch had a somewhat extreme position, but the basic function of investigating bad actors is needed. King4057 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I just want to be clear that I was not trying to hide views that I disagree with, I was collapsing a discussion that was seriously off-topic and dealt with individual editors' opinions about the subject rather than published sources or constructive criticism of the article as it is written. It's important to keep this talk page free of the drama that goes on in the real world happenings of CREWE and its supporters/detractors. Unless views are expressed in reliable sources or directly pertain to the article, we have no business discussing them on the article's talk page. That's just basic Wikipedia policy that the talk page is not a forum. I hope you better understand why I collapsed the conversation, and why I would do it again if it continues in that manner. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 06:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you added a link in the header to WP:PSCOI. I worked on that guide extensively, and love to see it mentioned (in fact I added it to the See Also section of WP:COI today). That said, I don't know that it's appropriate to link to a guide which doesn't carry weight of policy or even a guideline at the top of a core policy. What do you think? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 07:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to reply to this earlier and got distracted, you're probably right then I figured if it was just a shorter one it would be useful, if it's missing enough things that it can't be considered an accurate summary of what the policy is then maybe it shouldn't exist at all and maybe just try reword the main one so that they can understand it easier? Their main argument seems to be that it's too hard to understand, but then again, you lot are PR I guess maybe it may well be just a way of trying to lobby for less rules? :p ;) --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 19:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in PR, by the way, I've been a regular editor for 2-3 years and only joined CREWE because I think we need to do more to help COI editors work in harmony with our policies. PSCOI is a useful guide in my opinion, and I wrote it to reflect policy. It recommends creating drafts and seeking other editors' feedback, remaining neutral, disclosing conflicts of interest, and such. I don't think it provides a less stringent approach, but if you thought it did I'd take a close look at that. Anyway, I think the See Also section is the best place for it at the moment. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were going to remove it, just did it now

And ok, though there's been longer sockpuppeting than 3 years before lol I've seen too much about bad goings on at WR to be able to trust people much to be who they say they are anymore If you realy do believe that, cool, so do I - that's why I think it's important for those discussions to be had --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 22:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, you don't have to trust anyone's biography here, only the neutrality of their work. Though I support COI disclosures, I think we sometimes miss the point that focusing on content rather than contributors is usually the way to go. WR seems like a drain on energy and good faith; I usually avoid it. Thanks for removing the link, I was going to but got distracted. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

too much good faith is a bad thing[14], this went on for over 6 years with no-one spotting it, and they didn't even attempt to hide it: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Websense,_Inc. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 22:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Ocaasi said above is really what I feel is the obvious bulls-eye. If PR people were pitching the media, they would call them, tell them who they were, pitch their story and either (a) offer content and hope they write it or (b) write a contributed article that is reviewed and published by a neutral reporter.

There are many issues involved, but that's really what it comes down to. Thanks for letting me hjijack your thread ;-) King4057 (talk) 03:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not good.

• It's implicitly expected that editors limit discussion to the relevant topic area.
• Please be concise.
• In your unban request you indicated your intent was to focus on article work; I'm observing what I classify as a lot of activity in the WP: space.
• You were given a heads up that WR critics would be taking pot shots at you. There's not much Wikipedia can or will do about one off comments from IPs; best just to ignore them. Nobody Ent 19:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse everything that Nobody Ent has said. Ignore WR critics, and has been said before, don't draw attention to yourself by mentioning the site. You have been doing more work to articles/templates and are gradually improving as an editor: don't undermine all you have achieved so far by commenting on arbitration cases! I do know you have good intentions in mind with what you have to say, but honestly, for now you really are better off keeping away from Wiki-politics. Hey, I'm an admin and I rarely even get involved with them, too! Acalamari 19:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 1) (*) I did and tried to stop the changing of the subject by telling them "(if you've had some kind of problem on Wikipedia Review then send a PM there)" (*): *that page says "As a label, it is sometimes used as a tactic to thwart the kinds of discussion which are essential in collaborative editing" too, you can't have a discussion made up of one-liners. Serious discussion sometimes needs a couple paragraphs (*): Yes and I've done plenty to articles too, it sounds like you are trying to say I can't edit despite what the policy says? I was never told I can't talk, just to follow the rules, there was no extra conditions or whatever, that can't be held over my head forever... (*)(IPs): Ok yeah you're probably right, I was trying to follow wp:IPs are human too though rather than being rude and just starting an argument though --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 19:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Acalamari you're probably right about the attention but I thought someone should bring those other topics and sue gardner (whos's head of WMF these days)' comments on the issue in there, cos it's important and everyone seems to recognise that as per the talks that have been going on, don't worry I'm not going to make any stupid mistakes with trolls again or anything --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 19:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to "I was never told I can't talk...", I believe the implication that Nobody Ent was making with your activity in the WP/WT spaces was that you should keep your ratio of activity in those places lower than your activity in the article space (sorry if I misunderstood you, Nobody Ent, but that's how I understood that part of your comment). No one has said you aren't allowed to talk, but as you have said yourself, we are here to build an encyclopedia. :) Ultimately, articles should come first, and we are all better off keeping out of Wiki-politics as much as possible. Yes, you have done quite a bit of work to articles, but ideally you really should have the highest proportion of your edits to be towards the mainspace, not to WP/WT. Acalamari 19:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't play any of those silly edit count games and never will I'm not interested in them, I've been doing what's best for Wikipedia at the time, I've made plenty of article edits but because I tend to use preview more on those to get them right they aren't as edited as much as talk (where as nobody ent probably noticed I tend to make alot of edits to go with trail of thought, meaning one post equals about 5-10 edits sometimes when I keep thinking of more stuff to add ha) —- and recently a lot of stuff has came up that is very important regarding paid editors and not many people are actually defending Wikipedia against the lobbying . I thought this was pretty damn constructive considering the people who are meant to be catching these people ignored it for over 6 years(!) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Websense,_Inc.

more stuffs that isn't talking: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Idontknow [15][16][17][18]

(Also, I like joining Wikiprojects and talking on them, that's not against the rules either I'm pretty sure lol )

and again discussion is sometimes important too, and the few debates I've been in I've behaved a hell of a lot better then a lot of people here -.- --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I agree with everything Nobody Ent and Acalamari have written in this section. Please, refrain from commenting on (or even defending) Wikipedia Review; furthermore, please do not tag users you're discussing with as WP:SPAs and do not remove other people's comments. If you believe another editor is behaving in a disruptive fashion, please contact a clerk or an arbitrator. Thanks. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But their the only edit was to that discussion page and they clearly weren't a newbie, that wasn't a user discussing, that was someone's sockpuppet About removing personal attacks, I was going per wp:RPA, Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was not talking about wikipedia review, he was replying directly to me in his attack and he was told before to leave me alone... It was deliberate rudeness to try disrupt a serious discussion yeah. RE arbitrators/clerks I didn't think you were supposed to contact them about minor stuff like that? I will if you say so as an administrator though but I figured it's best to just wp:DNR like the SPI team said to me before in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Idontknow RE the anonymous accounts that kept attacking me --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Selina, Salvio, Nobody Ent and Acalamari are right in that you shouldn't tag IPs as SPAs or fall for the trolling that some people carry out, yourself. If it happens on a ArbCom case page like it did here, best thing to do is to let the clerk (here, Salvio, I believe) know. He should nip it in the butt, it's part of his job, and he's pretty good at it.

I do want to emphasize though that the only problem I see is in removing other editor's comments (however trollish they were) or pointing out that an IP is an SPA (actually, if that's true, I don't think that's that bad - it's done all the time on AfDs, votes, etc.) - just point it out in your own comment rather in the user's comment. I don't see much of a problem with Selina's original comment.

While we're here though:

1. Is that IP the same one that as the red linked user that has been vandalizing Selina's user page?

2. I thought Bugs got banned/volunteered to stay off of AN/I and related pages precisely in order to avoid trolling comments like he made here? Is it just that ArbCom pages are not subject to this ban (which would be an obvious oversight)?VolunteerMarek 20:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Selina, please go and read the long post I wrote on your talk page (now on your talk archive) that outlined a few points that you seriously need to start following. Yes, you don't 'have to' and no, they're not conditions of your unbanning, but if you don't give them some serious thought and make some sort of effort to follow them, you are going to get dragged in front of ANI on a block request again, and you're risking losing some of your support base in the process. Your last block should have been a wake-up call for you. If you're going to go back to what you were doing before without taking anything in, I won't continue to support you. So again, please re-read what I wrote and consider following some of it. You won't get conversations like this one if you follow the advice you've been given. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Selina, I wasn't actually referring to "edit counts" in themselves or suggesting trying to "up" your edit count, I was saying that it is important to have a higher ratio of activity in the mainspace than towards WP/WT pages. I hope that clarifies what I meant. :) Acalamari 20:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 1)@Acalamari: that's what I meant too I am not interested in editcounts and ratios I think that's a silly approach to take if you read what I said maybe you might see what i mean there now? I was trying to point out that sometimes a ot of stuff in those pages is important and not just chatter, and also what I said about editing my chat posts a lot to get them right screwing up any of those kind of systems anyway lol. It's a really really silly approach to take that somehow people have to follow some kind of ratio on editing, as long as you make plenty of article stuff too it really shouldn't matter if you talk a lot too, because it's important and too few people are doing it (I am the one who put the green banner at the top and cleaned up a few template stuff there). Wikipedia's social environment is definitely very lacking as that civility thing and all the discussions RE jimbo's talk page put forward, it'd be negligence to ignore that when I have relevant experience (and I don't mean just WR:p)

@techno Ok but it just seems wrong when other people actually go around breaking the rules constantly on purpose just to try cause trouble that nothing happens to them when I get every tiny mistake I make commented on by someone bringing up threats of bans each itme, don't you see how that is... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Selina, I am somewhat worried about some of your reverts. Can I kindly recommend you revert less, or even possibly consider limiting yourself to a voluntary 1RR? (In other words, sticking to only one revert at a time in a 24 hour period, unless you are reverting vandalism or a sock.) As I mentioned previously, users can still be blocked for edit-warring, even if they do not break 3RR. Don't worry about other users reverting you: ultimately, you will be better off if you stick to a single revert then be the one to get discussions going on talk pages. I'm about to go offline now, so I won't be able to reply until the morning. This is only a suggestion, but it is one I would definitely consider. Best. Acalamari 23:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank you for being diligent on sock puppets, not because I'm involved with any of the pages that you did before, but because it's a good thing to do and I have seen socks in use and never known what to do about it until I read the template pages, to which I was lead by your tea and cookies on Elen of the Road's talk page!! It's that six-degrees-of-separation thing. In any case, when I first started at wiki, I made an account for a few edits, and then forgot I had the account. My bad on that one... when I came back I used anonymous IP for two edits, I don't know why, probably a mistake, and started my new account. What I did after reading about socks and templates was to go back and own up to those two "non-account uses." I'd never have known to do this without reading what you wrote, so thank you!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

awww thank you that's really sweet I never actually finished putting it together properly I got distracted, I'll definitely finish it off and add more co of this I saw the main list was such a mess and thought someone should fix it and it always seems like (since I was around in 2005 even I remember when I used to mess with template stuff) that not many people do I think it's cos of a kind of geek elitism that people don't maliciously mean to do but just don't think about making it easy for the average person reading it to find things in the tangled webs of links, next on my list is to improve the AFD stuff[19] That reminds me I should put a big link tp wp:SPI on it cos thats the main place for it apparently the other templates are meant to be used as part of that (I got in trouble before for trying to be helpful and tagging ones that looked suspicious myself lol) --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 17:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Silverseren^C 19:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Posting an editor's personal information on the Internet in retaliation for an on-wiki dispute is completely unacceptable. I have previously supported your unblock requests - twice, actually - but this kind of behavior will simply not be tolerated. 28bytes (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was actually in a private forum though because a moderator moved the thread - after I moved it to the main section I actually edited that stuff out voluntarily because I had just been angry at the time and wanted to not sink to his level - He is deliberately just trying to silence anyone who criticises the Corporate Representatives group, please see here[20]

If you look at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#Trying_to_stop_this_before_it_starts please read my replies there, this is a systematic gaming of the system to get at me because me and Jimbo are the Corporate Representatives group's biggest critics...

I didn't get any warning that I wasn't allowed to talk about people on wikipedia review, in fact adminstold me before that it was not relevant and I should not bring Wikipedia Review stuff up before :(

this is because Seren is part of the Corporate Representatives group and hass been harassing me ever since I joined WP:PAIDWATCH (in opposition to his WP:CO-OP) and edited the Corporate Representatives for Ethical Engagement article supporting Jimbo (other than Jimbo I am their biggest critic) :(

--Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well no - it's because you posted personal information about an editor. That's not quite the same as discussing Wikipedia on Wikipedia Review. pablo 20:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that link was posted in a private forum that wasn't public though, and when I moved it into public I removed the stuff as I said before, I edited it out out courtesy when I didn't even have to- - I was told before that stuff on wikipedia review doesn't matter and shouldn't be brought onto Wikipedia --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't private to you only though, now was it? pablo 20:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I bet you must have said uncomplimentary stuff in private to friends about people who've been nasty to you too though? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between venting and posting personal information. Please read WP:OUTING. --Rschen7754 20:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Of course. And in public too. But what I haven't done is anded out names, addresses, phone numbers, links to their web presence etcetera. pablo 20:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen He and the others from wp:CO-OP have been harassing me on the wiki since I joined wp:PAIDWATCH, that article talks about posting things on wiki which I definitely never have, he has been constantly attacking me here though please look at my replies to the WP:WQA honestly look he started following me around everywhere and this WP:ANI was started up just after I made this edit supporting Jimbo, it's because other than Jimbo I am the biggest critic of the Corporate Representatives group that Seren is a member the WP:ANI was started straight after this edit:[21] --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@pablo: Neither did I, I named him in private sure he is a public figure on the group going around saying he is silver seren, he himself said it's known - should I restore the thread so you can see? I don't know what to do anymore I removed personal information from it when I made it public (not even because I thought I had to but just out of courtesy to not sink to his level where he's been harassing me on wiki constantly...) --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am a supporter of WP:PAIDWATCH which aims to monitor subversive PR operatives on Wikipedia, such as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Websense,_Inc.. You can disagree with someone whilst remaining wp:CIVIL and I have done nothing but do so on wiki, he just seemed to want to stir things up constantly to get what he wanted, I knew he was trying to get me banned when he started that - the Corporate Representatives group on Facebook (that he goes around openly saying he is silver seren on) fairly malign as has been discussed on a Wikimedia Foundation official's talk page previously: User_talk:Philippe_(WMF)#Wikimania_Panel and as Jimbo has said, it's a serious problem that cannot be ignored:[22]

At Talk:Corporate_Representatives_for_Ethical_Wikipedia_Engagement#Credit_Where_Due anyone can see that I was replying to him as a member of the "Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement" group who was defending the PR advocacy editor... Silver Seren has been wp:wikistalking me[23] constantly after I stated my opposition to the Corporate Representatives group and this seems to be normal tactics of the group Silver Seren founded supporting corporate editing in retaliation to wp:PAIDWATCH to try harass dissenters, as I also had a similar issue happen 2 days before he made that WQA thread to try defame me since I added Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Websense,_Inc. to the PAIDWATCH wikiproject at 9:23[24], "bob rayner" arrived at 9:58[25] along with "Bilby" at 11:13[26] to talk:Websense to defend the companies' paid PR sockpuppeting — both whom are not members of wp:PAIDWATCH, but apparently founding members (the 5th and 7th respectively) of Silver Seren's previously mentioned Wikiproject working with the Corporate Representatives PR group, which most of them including Seren - as stated on their site - are also supporters of

His very next edit after deleting Jimbo's reply to the group (speaking as the public representative for Wikipedia) that I added to the article was to go to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Blocked try get me banned... you're letting Corporate Representatives use the system for their own ends perfectly --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 21:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't understand is why you care. Why did you come back to Wikipedia? Was it to simply edit? Be a part of the community? Or was it to get involved in politics? If these policies needed attacking or defending, you could have let someone else with far less baggage do it. You could have waited a while to rebuild good faith in you. You somehow could not avoid getting involved, and here we are. --Golbez (talk)

I came back because I care just look at my contributions I want to make the place better and help people.. .look at the messages people have left me saying thank you here too I didn't start that WP:WQA or the WP:ANI, both times that was seren who I had never even talked to before (minus defending him on Wikipedia Review when he was saying thekohser called him a fag, which he afterwards admitted was a lie) it was because I edited on the wp:PAIDWATCH project and seren hates it, that's when they started harassing me to try scare me off "their" (Corporate Representatives) articles like when I uncovered all those Websense sockpuppets and posted about it on PAIDWATCH his WP:CO-OP people came straight away

But that's just it. Why did you care about PAIDWATCH? Why could you not just lie low for a while and not give anyone any ammunition for hating you? Why did you have to get involved with anything? --Golbez (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 1) ::I restored the thread for now so you can hopefully see what I mean[27] I removed this thread after a complaint was made on Wikipedia about it, but restoring it so the facts can be verified by neutral parties such as the fact that the personal information was actually voluntarily removed by myself (like I said before I didn't want to be like him, I didn't even know there was a rule against it but I removed it anyway just because I didn't want to go to his level of harassing people, I don't consider calling names harassing?) when I moved the thread into the public section

@your question I thought that could be done without getting into serious arguments I didn't realise how sneaky people would get about it I thought if you just follow the rules it would be ok since I was staying away from the dramaboards? til seren kept leaving me messages telling me I had to respond on them and even then I always stayed wp:CIVIL something I said before I think is iimportant so work can get done here neutrally but they just wouldn't leave it alone

I don't know you're probably right but I thought if I went by that thinking then "how long would be long enough" before it was ok? I mean I never broke any of the rules and even people I disagreed with I mostly got on ok with like Ocaasi because we did it civilly

I was told that the unban conditions were the same that I need to avoid breaking the rules and I didn't

if you want me to be more careful about arguing with people on Wikipedia Review I can do that too, it was just that I was told before that stuff on there doesn't matter and shouldn't be brought up here -- I did not post any personal information publicly that was in a private forum and when I made it public I edited that stuff out

honestly if I can just edit articles I'd be happy and I promise I would do that if that were the rules? but I was told that the unban conditions were the same that I need to avoid breaking the rules and I didn't or at least not knowingly if there's a rule against arguing with people on other websites I think everyone knows by now I am a good editor just look at the messages people have left me here honestly or [28] or [29] --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 21:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How long is enough? I don't know. I suffered due to your forum and I was willing to let you back. That's how much I'd hoped we'd all matured. It however didn't take you more than two weeks to get everyone riled against you. That wouldn't have happened had you not sought it out. You say you'd be happy to just edit article, but you were given two chances in the past month to do just that, and you just couldn't. I don't understand. I don't think it even needs to have been made a formal "unban condition", it's kind of obvious. --Golbez (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that I don't think i've ever sen your name there, I haven't had time to post there a lot and mostly left it to the others to run, since I've been back I've actually been cleaning it up a lot lately and got a few complaints about that.. that ranting about sernen was in a private forum at first and when I moved it to the public one I took the name stuff out (even tho it was public info) just because I didn't want to be on his level if I leave do you want someone like thekohser running it? I have been trying to get it turned into a more serious forum lately, the ranting I even named myself as venting and edited it out :(

I wanted to give one last chance to care about Wikipedia and try make it a better place if you really want me to not get into discussions at all I could do that but I thought it should be ok if i's not on the drama places and just about articles no one ever told me there would be any problems with posting at WR people said it didn't matter and shouldn't bring any WR stuff here --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 22:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My dear Selina, I am WR member #35. I was there near the beginning, and I last posted somewhere around five years ago, back when it was still harboring people like Andrew Morrow. If you've been trying to improve it lately then excellent, though I won't be checking it out. I will not be unblocking you here - it would be very unseemly to do it twice in a row - but I still hope for a positive outcome at some point. --Golbez (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get any warning that I wasn't allowed to talk about people on wikipedia review, in fact people said it was not relevant before :( i NEVER posted any ppersonal information publicly if you look at the thread I had actually edited the personal stuff out when I moved the thread to public (not evne because I thought I had to I was told before it doesnt matter what is on WR but just not to go th his level..) i really wanted to give caring abut wikipedia a chance i just wanted to make it better i stayed within the rules and they are saying that because i called silver seren names on WR i get blocked but no one ever said that was against the rules in fact everyone said stuff on WR shouldnt be broguht up here :( could you maybe at least not endorse blocking me then bleh

if I could just write articles I would be happy I thought it would be ok to have discussions about articles too if it wasn't on the drama boards and just about articles and wp:CIVIL I was told as long as I followed the rules that was the unban condition and I did --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 22:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can remove my endorsement, yes. Not that it will matter. --Golbez (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I spend my time tryng to help make WR a better place and making sure personal stuff is always removed before it is public when you attack me about it even when it's in public.... WR could be a lot more free speech than it is but we try not to go to that level.... can anyone please tell me why I should bother holding back the tide of nastiness (have you SEEN the kind of stuff on ED about wikipedia people) and trying to make wikipedia a better place rather than doing going along with what so many other people said and giving up on it as hopeless...

I want to at least try, if you want me to not talk about people on other sites ok but no one ever told me that... admins told me before that stuff on WR didnt matter --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 22:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How would you feel about a topic ban from Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement and WP:PAIDWATCH? Silver Seren seems willing to let this go if you stay out of that area, and Johnuniq feels you no longer need to mention Wikipedia Review on Wikipedia. Neither of these seems overly restrictive to me. Would you consent to this type of topic ban? AniMate 01:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

if that is what you want as administrators then I'd say ok

I still think you are doing a bad thing though to let him get what he wanted by starting the drama in the first place like that though, after I reported Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Websense,_Inc. onto WP:PAIDWATCH they started following me onto articles afterwards - I posted diff links abov ^ - that is how Seren started harassing me in the first place just because I was trying to do the right thing and report that kinda slimy stuff :(

none of your own checkusers spotted that going on for 6 years

the whole Corporate Representatives group are collaborating here of-wiki WP:CANVASS on Facebook and elsewhere in hopes of furthering real life career prospects Jimbo spoke up that if they really wanted to edit ethically, there are rules for that already, but it's just about trying to bruteforce their way into control, they banned user:King4057 because he was too genuinely ethical: Talk:Corporate_Representatives_for_Ethical_Wikipedia_Engagement#Credit_Where_Due

they tried to get me here:[30] (that is king agreeing I was right, who has been editing wikipedia ethically for years openly not interfering with articles and working within wikipedias rules than trying to bruteforce corporate dominate articles like Websense - then if you scroll down there is silver seren starting a rant thread trying to cause enough trouble to intimidate me into not touching the articles they are declaring they "own"...)

and when that failed, he saw me venting on WR and took it as a chance to use as ammunition to get rid of me even though he goes around openly saying he is silver seren it was about points scoring, it's about shutting people out from discussion and as he says, stopping critics editing their articles

the edit he is upset about, if you look at his contributions he came to WP:ANI straight after reverting me adding Jimbo's comments as spokesman for Wikipedia here: [31]

if you really want I could just drop it yeah... but this isn't right :( --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 01:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Seren I was calling the Websense sockpuppeting slimy, that I reported!!! notice I said "report that kinda slimy stuff", I never reported you anywhere! -.- I do think your tactics aren't exactly in the spirit of Wikipedia though, even if you are angry at the arguing on WR if you truly believed in ethical editing then why so opposed to oversight? why join Corporate Representatives and support banning king who's supported working ethically for years? they are not the good guys, the whole PR industry is based around manipulating people, they are slimy, they are just using you --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 02:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight is one thing, but you've just been insulting CREWE (and then myself when I disagreed with you). Oversight is actually trying to be helpful and collegially giving suggestions.

And, as i've said before, I wasn't involved in King being removed from the group. If you mean support as in why I don't think it was wrong, that's because, as i've also said before, the reason why he was removed was for promotion. He was promoting himself and trying to use the group to get the members to be his clients, when that wasn't the purpose of the group.

And if that's what you think about the PR industry, then I really think you need to try and stay out of this topic area entirely, because it's clear you can't edit neutrally in it. Silverseren^C 02:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David King is a very ethical PR guy, who your friends at the group have banned, said: "I have a PPT slide I call "the wall of shame" with about 20 major brands who have all been busted for inappropriate censorship on Wikipedia. My experience has been almost every PR person breaks the rules, but most of the time for disclosure, puffery, etc. and not for censorship. The Wikiproject outlines a major PR agency that censored their clients' executive fraud scandal. It's more common than you think and the volunteer community is extremely forgiving. Almost every client I get has some kind of history of trying to do it themselves, but not following the rules." 3 February at 18:27

Claire Thompson's comment "There seems to be a time delay between stuff being written and appearing in this forum" again gives the impression this was a political thing. David King's posts seem to have disappeared after posting this article encouraging PR people to act GENUINELY ethically by Wikipedia's policies], and I notice he linked to wp:PSCOI quite a few times too ...

don't you wonder why they are a facebook group? it's because facebook has some of the best censorship tools available for companies to completely control what people can say on their pages, it's one of the PR tools of choice these days...

if you really believe what you are doing is right then why are you going after apparently the only person in 6 years who's able to spot sneaky corporate editing without needing checkuser on articles like websense?

if you really believe what you are doing is right then why are you going after the only non WMF person that's been standing up and saying sneaky editing is wrong? Why are we even on different sides if you truly believe in encouraging them to act ethically?

why did you and the rest of the group start following me in the first place after I posted about websense on wp:PAIDWATCH?

surely we should actually be on the same side if you truly believed in ethical editing as King who got banned by your group does...

seriously, why go after me at all? why aren't we on the same damn side? lol. it just seems like you think neutrality means corporations should have more of a say than everyone else, not equal - the goal should be equality --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 02:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what King told you, but he is not the only PR person that has been trying to make ethical, transparent contributions to Wikipedia. There are a large amount of them that have been doing it for years, William Beutler for one, whom i'm working with in the Wikiproject. User:Rklawton is another such person. And there are many more besides.

And you keep quoting Claire's comment, when that was explained in the group already. Facebook sometimes has a time delay. Groups have no control over what messages are posted. They can delete them after the fact, but they don't control the accepting of them being posted and the timing and all of that.

That's cos Claire is cool, she really gets it:

"The phrasing of that piece makes me want to step outside of this group. "One proposal of the CREWE participants is for a list of mistakes in the Wikipedia articles on Fortune 100 companies. Another page documents the CREWE PR Plan and a proposal for a pilot project that would allow PR representatives to edit Wikipedia articles." It sounds hugely self serving and probably explains why people view PRs as a bunch of paymaster's puppets, which is exactly why a source like Wikipedia is so needed and so valuable." ::::--Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)}

Do you even know what that comment was in response to? Claire was making that in regards to the CREWE article that Ocaasi made. She thought the PR people had made it, but they didn't. And the info she's quoting came directly from the reference in question, so... *shrugs* And she's not saying that PR is bad, just that people view it that way, which seems to be a bit at odds with your opinion of PR. Silverseren^C 03:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for King, yes, he was banned after adding that link. Because, in addition to adding that, he tried to use it as leverage to get other members to hire him. And other people in the group have linked to WP:PSCOI as well.

If that's what they told you then they lied, because they've ALL been advertising to each other, constantly:

1. "A few weeks ago I posted about a survey I’m conducting sponsored by Page Center _link_"
2. "Ya'll will be interested in this guest post on my blog _link_"
3. "Jack O'Dwyer: Here's an excellent historical column .. O'Dwyer's Public Relations Blog _link_"
4. "Robert Lawton: I think this is an excellent summary of the current state of affairs: Making The Case For PR Pros Editing Wikipedia by Gerard F. Corbett _link_ — Gerard ::::Francis Corbett likes this."
5. "Jack O'Dwyer: A PR problem is confronting the PR industry .. O'Dwyer's Public Relations Blog _link_"
6. "Blog by the CEO of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, updating on our progress _link_"
7. "Jack O'Dwyer: Here's my blog today _link_"
8. "I interviewed ... _link_"
9. "Jack O'Dwyer: I'm urging the PR Society.. _link_"
10. "Phil Gomes: Phil Gomes' Thoughts _link:_"
11. "Jack O'Dwyer: ...Here is a link to my blog"
12. "Some of my own thoughts _link_"

--Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 03:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about linking to articles they made on the subject, that wasn't the issue at all. Yes, they all do that. The issue was that King was trying to drum up business for himself through the group. It had nothing to do with the article he linked. Silverseren^C 03:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're a Facebook group because Facebook is currently the best technology and social networking site around to get people together to discuss something. That's why the protesters in the Arab Spring used it as well to organize rallies.

Facebook is used extensively by PR Because if you ban someone from a public page it never actually tells them, it's designed to falsely give the impression to people that their posts are still going through ok, it's utterly slimy and designed that way on purpose because ultimately Facebook is a big sticky pie for marketing, that's where nearly all the money comes from othe than games. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 03:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly that your opinion about Facebook, an opinion that I do not share. Silverseren^C 03:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I haven't been going after King. I wasn't involved in whatever the Websense issue was. I don't control what other members of the group do. There's not some secret collaboration going on behind the scenes, no matter how much you think there is. If they were following you places, then I guess that's a separate issue that you have to deal with with them. All I know is that you were following me to pages I was editing on, and even to User:Doctorow's page, which I don't see how you could have gotten to if not by stalking my contributions. Silverseren^C 03:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know you haven't been going after King, but why support them doing that is what I was asking? It's obvious he wasn't promoting any more than the others, practically ever post O'Dwyer makes is promoting as I mentioned

you followed me after you complained on WP:PAIDWATCH's talk page... it's still there for anyone to see, and as I said before about Cory, I posted about him on Talk:Websense the day before I messaged him, and if you want to email The Register and point them to this page confirming it's ok with me, they will confirm that I've been talking with them about stuff for a few days...

so it comes again to why are we arguing at all if you genuinely want co-operation ethically? I don't get it --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 03:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See what I just said above. He was promoting more.

Again, where did I follow you? You started commenting on articles I was already involved in. Again, I have no idea what's going on with Websense or why The Register is involved (though I would advise not trusting them about stuff, they're more on the gossipy side of the street). But whatever was going on there, your comment on Doctorow's page was specifically about me.

The issue is that you keep insulting me and the group i'm working with, who are trying to edit ethically. Silverseren^C 03:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never spoke with you on Wikipedia (and only once that I remember on WR? when you were claiming someone called you a fag when I defended you to give you a chance to prove it... until it turned out to be wrong?) before you started posting on the talk page of WP:PAIDWATCH, which you aren't a member of, and then removing the comments stating Corporate Representatives are a lobby group... after that 2 of your group followed me onto the websense article when I posted there, and when I posted on the corporate representatives talk page you complained about it on WQA then started linking messages I had left on king's talk page... But you're right, that's not as important as as the rest:

You have claimed that King's claims that Corporate Representatives are not a lobby group and want to bully Wikimedia into changing the rules are a lie, and that they only want to work within the rules ethically, but I just looked at your contributions and found this only just now saying:

"you'll need to change Jimbo's mind and also get WP:COI changed"

Your group shouldn't be regarding WP:COI and Jimbo as your enemy (when he's speaking on behalf of Wikimedia rather than Wikia anyway, I'm not actually blindly loyal like the now-deputy of WMF claimed, ha, I have people from both sides claiming I either like Wiki too much or am bad) — again (and I also note that the editor that reverted me on the Corporate Representatives page seems to be taking an unusual amount of interest in companies like Caterpillar etc who Corporate Representatives mentioned on their group would be enlisting to edit PR articles on their behalf which skirts rather close to WP:MEATPUPPET)...

Alpha Quadrant has a point and said it far more eloquently than I tend to in my blunt ways () on the former link that there are plenty of avenues for it to be done ethically, why not support that as wp:CO-OP stated goals are instead of trying to change policies to better suit corporate wants? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 04:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Selina, I have sent you an email with some advice about this whole situation. Please, read it and take it to heart. Thank you, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go look thanks --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 04:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We specifically all agreed on the talk page way back at the beginning of the Wikiproject that we are not going to try to change any policies or be involved in doing so. So I have no idea what you're talking about. You seem to be taking an extensive amount of things out of context of what they mean. And, again for the second (third?) time, I am not the keeper of other members of the project. I don't know what they're up to right now. If they're doing something wrong, then you need to bring it up with them. Silverseren^C 04:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if you are not their representative then it might be cool to give them a chance to speak themselves more? And not so much behaving like "Corporate Representatives Representative on Wikipedia" thing where you answer questions directed towards them? ;) --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 04:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who were you expecting to respond? Because the people you were referring to are Wikipedians, not members of CREWE. There's only 3 CREWE members I know offhand that edit Wikipedia and I don't believe any of them are watching that page. Silverseren^C 04:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That thread was started by Gomes who you've talked to on the group, and originally created it, as you must have saw? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 05:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be better off asking him directly on his talk page. I doubt he looked at the discussion again after the change was made. He isn't all that active on Wikipedia. Silverseren^C 05:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I replied below before on #Suggestions though it's not my job to oppose this stuff I get paid far too little for it (e.g. nothing, I actually donate both to WP and WR[32][33]), it's WMF's even if they apparently leave Jimbo to have to do everything and prettty much no one to check articles to see if they are free of bias from what I saw at Websense I'm happy to just let you play your silly arguments out if it has to be that way, I only came back because I cared and wanted to give it a try honestly (rather than coming back on a new account which I could have totally easily done) despite all the abuse I've been given overall --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 04:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have some suggestions, but will start by noting that I opposed your original unblock on the basis that I did not see any evidence to suggest that there would be good results, and because I oppose the excessive linkage between WP and WR that has arisen with multiple people contributing in both places. Regardless of the accuracy of criticisms raised at WR, I am one of many here who dislike WR's outing and abuse of editors—even banned and crazy editors should be left in peace IMHO because editing an encyclopedia should not lead to real-life problems. I do not want to debate any of that, and I have mentioned it merely for disclosure. Despite my opposition, I was pleased when your block was lifted because by that stage many other editors had commented and had demonstrated a good community spirit and I was coming around to thinking I was being petty. Let's not discuss any of that.

The best strategy now would be to review what you want to do, and why you want to do it (serious thought, not just a quick reaction). If the political side of Wikipedia appeals to you (such as ANI, policy pages, Jimbo's talk, and paid editing), I'm afraid the future is bleak—we have enough people to comment on all that. I'm not telling you my opinion on what you should do; I am giving you my opiniion that the community will not accept a person returning to political activity after problems. So, if such activity is your main reason for participation here, I think you should be prepared for opposition from many in the community. I haven't looked at the fuss over paid editing, but I guess you oppose those who imagine paid editing is good. I agree with you, and have stated many times that paid advocacy is bad for the encyclopedia, and would kill volunteers. However, people who run WR and who have been banned should not engage in that side of Wikipedia (despite being correct, and despite the unfairness of the situation). What the community wants above all is people who can drop a topic when it blows up—it doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong because someone else will step in if warranted. Bickering, and harping on the past, are corrosive to the community.

Re mentioning WR (my comment at ANI): I have no idea whether that has arisen before; it is just my suggestion for the future. Whether fair or not, many here do not like some aspects of WR, and it would be a good idea for someone very closely associated with WR to voluntarily declare that they realize it is a problem for some people, and the topic won't arise again. If you did decide to make any undertakings, you can always add that you would like the situation reviewed after six months, with a possibility of a change—nothing is permanent here. Johnuniq (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to just let other people defend Wikipedia in future, or neglect to as with the 6-year long abuse on the Websense article that I uncovered, whciever way, it looks like I can't without getting into trouble so yeah if I absolutely have to just stick to edigting articles I will, it's such a shame when so few people seem to be able to discuss civilly withe people they disagree with rather than people dividing people into who is an enemy and who is not and all the stupid games, ugh, I just don't want to get involved in that stuff anymore if that's the way it has to be, I think the culture still is too easy for people to use the system against people they decide are enemies I think I'll just leave the criticism to WR in future cos it's obviously still not safe here, or even there really --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 03:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't really care what happened off-wiki. Your behavior on-wiki has been to stir up trouble from the first minute you were unblocked. The only conditions I would support an unblock is if you confined yourself purely to editing articles, and stopped all on-wiki political activity in any way. As I don't see that happening, given that you were given ample warning to do so before this block, I am washing my hands of this. Vaya con dios. --Jayron32 23:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you would please please just read this talk page just above I actually just agreed that I would be willing to do that, only a line or two before your post here just above ^ --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 23:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per your email, I will take a closer look at your edits/history later this evening (hopefully) and will reconsider my stance at ANI if necessary.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really really appreciate that thank a lot, if you look above here I gave links to that stuff above in my reply to Wehwalt and DGG there

Well, it's kinda moot now, but I had started to look over the pages earlier tonight before you were unblocked. Basically, what I decided is that I had mixed emotions. On the one hand I definitely sympathize with you and your stance relative to the paid writing. It makes me uncomfortable that there are people here editing who are paid to do so, that being said, we can't stop it from happening so maybe moderating what they do might help? I dunno, I think I land closer to your position than SS's.

I also felt some sympathy because you are drawing the short straw. Because of your history/past all it takes is a little faux pas and people are going to jump all over you. So while I sympathized with you, I walked away wondering what good would it do to unblock you if all you were going to do is piss somebody off next week. So I'll echo what I've seen others saying.

Avoid the politics. Work on the articles and build up a reputation here on wikipedia of being a valued contributor. You might be 100% right when it comes to various disputes, but for the time being, you have a huge target on your back. Let people start to trust you HERE... keep your nose clean, even if it means eating crow. Otherwise, we'll be right back here in a week. I wish you the best... I don't know if you can do it or if the community will actually give you a fair chance. Hell, I'm not sure if it's worth it, but if you want to be part of this community, you'll have to go out of your way to pacify people. If you can't/won't do that, it would be better for you just to admit it and leave.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 06:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mistress Selina Kyle, as a result of several complaints from individuals who have received your emails in the last short while, I have blocked your email access. Spamming Wikipedians is not appropriate. Risker (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not spam anyone, I never sent anyone more than one message and I only messagesd a couple of people recently (I don't think I bothered anyone, with only one message? ) the same as I would if I could edit talk pages, but I can't obviously If Prioryman (talk · contribs) has complained then I am sorry, but all I did was ask him to please take a look at my side of the story on my talk page, honestly --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 23:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

? MSK, did anyone ask you to stop emailing them? Nobody Ent 23:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one has said a word of complaint to me I didn't email anyone here more than once either I only left a couple of messages asking if they coud look at my talk page and reconsider since there's been a lot of discussion on here that isn't on ANI and I think some people hadn't realised that I had agreed to stay away from that stuff here --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 00:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In response to Nobody Ent, over 40 emails have been sent through the MediaWiki interface since the block was put in place. I personally received four complaints about them, including two from admins who had never heard of Mistress Selina Kyle. It is no surprise that the recipients did not respond, because in doing so they would give MSK their email address. And really, if someone has no interest in being involved, why would they post on this page? Risker (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't message anyone more than once though, I didn't bother anyone I made sure if they have an issue with 1 email wthen why not just ignore it instead of being so vindictive, I don't get some people --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 00:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... if you get unblocked one more time, and I very much hope you are, you are going to have to show that you are serious about being here, and not just hanging around to cause drama.

Basically, if you do get unblocked, I want to see you do some real content work or I'm dumping you as a mentoree, - I have supported you very strongly so far. I think you're way smarter than the average Wikipedian (okay, that may not be saying much) and you could bring some sanity to this place. But, to put it simply, Wikipedia doesn't need more drama queens.

Yes, yes, yes. People like Silver Seren or Baseball Bugs or whoever the fuck else just mostly hang around this site, add a lot of noise, troll and take not-so-funny potshots at people who can't answer back and do nothing productive (I think Silver might have actually at some point). That does not give you an excuse to become some kind of twisted mirror image of them. As people have told you over and over again, stay away from drama boards, stay away from trouble, ignore these people. Write a goddamn article!

At the end of the day, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Yes, I am very aware of the fact that on a good day it doesn't even come close to resembling one. But there are some of us, who still hold out a flicker of hope that it could be (and there are some corners of it that do manage to resemble one). And writing an encyclopedia involves... well, writing. Not bickering with people on AN/I, not tagging people's talk pages (you tag theirs now, someone will tag yours when you're blocked - oh, hey, someone already tried), not spouting off on Jimbo's talk page. All that stuff is a side show (once in awhile, it's okay, maybe even necessary sometimes, but it is a sideshow). You want that kind of a social interaction, WR should be sufficient. If you're gonna cause trouble then at least first do something to back it up.

So, if you are unblocked, and I very much hope you are, I'm gonna give you ten days to write a quality new article (say, at least DYK worthy - which is a pretty low threshold), or substantially improve an existing one. Otherwise, this is just gonna keep dragging me into drama that I despise and which is a total waste of my time.

Tough love and all that.VolunteerMarek 07:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, just wow. Silverseren^C 08:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find this characterization of Silver seren to be highly inaccurate - he is a productive editor, and when he participates in the discussion of "meta issues" it is as a voice of reason. Discussion of those issues is not worthless, or else why are there admins and noticeboards in the first place? The problem is that we have unworkable policies which have made these processes unproductive, but people still need to take the time to think that through and fix them. Wnt (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of those issues is not worthless, or else why are there admins and noticeboards in the first place? - that's actually a really good question. Anyway, post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy.VolunteerMarek 16:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Selina, I do have to agree with Volunteer Marek, especially the part about not wanting to be dragged into more drama. If you are unblocked this time...and while there is hope on this occasion things are looking pretty tough right now...your best course of action, as always, will be to stick to articles: pretend that places such as AN/I and other dramaboards, Jimbo's talk page, the political parts of Wikipedia, etc...all don't exist; I am an admin and I rarely feel the need to venture to those parts of the project. I also suggest that unless someone directly mentions WR to you on your talk page, don't talk about it anywhere on-wiki (if someone brings it up on a talk page other than your own, don't fall into a trap by responding to it). If you are unblocked, please follow the advice you are given more closely (such as this that I mentioned the other day), otherwise you will end up being blocked again, and it's unlikely that VM, myself, and others would be able to help any further if that happens. Lastly, my intent here is not to patronize you, but rather, to be firmer to help ensure you aren't blocked again: a lot of users have supported your unblocking in the past, and I don't believe that we all want to be let down by you ending up with your ban re-instated. Acalamari 11:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think I would just leave the criticism to WR in future it's obviously still not safe here or even there really the recent events

It still amazes me how quickly things can get out of hand here, even when I stay within all the rules (I had no idea there was a rule stopping you talking about people on other websites now, that was new to me and I had no way of being prepared for it cos yeah in the discussions before people kept telling me WR stuff doesn't matter, don't bring it up here, and when seren brought it up here I tried to point out that I never brought any of it here or posted anything against the rules here)

I'm happy to just stay away from the politics, it's all toxic and nasty and pointless trying to make it better it seems like I'd be happy to follow that and just take it a lot slower in future definitely... but yeah that's all pointless if I'm blocked I might as well just let the trolls win on WR too, over there the mods spend so much time trying to keep that place cleanm, the other mods more than me but recently I was trying to clean the place up... but why do we even bother when we get treated like crao regarless, it's like the admins here WANT us to be totally alienated and give up, and let the trolls turn it into a worse form of ED

I really would be happy with trying to give it at least one more chance before I just say give up on the place, ignore lal the crap and just try make the best of the situation --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 14:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with the developments surrounding User:Mbz1, who appears to have frequented WR and other sites? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah ASCII I saw all that - but nothing about WR or other sites was why she was banned was it, it was for on meta here wasn't it?

I actually said to her on WR before she could probably come back here if she could just stay away from the topic of gwen gale (I actually said to her, "it sounds like gwen gale gwen gale gwen gale" and go back to the lovely constructive stuff she was doing like her photography (which is quite frankly AMAZING if you look at her userpage and the people asking to use her stuff all the time, it's such a shame) she could probably come back, but she didn't want to she was too upset though I think if an admin talked to her maybe she could have a chance too if she could somehow bring herself to agree to just not getting involved int that stuff too, you lost someone who is really nice there she just felt wronged and ended up acting just as bad to try make it better, I know.

oh and I saw on the WP:ANI#Blocked that you said that you didn't like how I conducted COI investigations, but if you look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Websense,_Inc./Archive I actually did it totally within the rules --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 14:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That does not excuse the way you treated User:Silver seren, who as far as I can tell has nothing to do with Websense. His efforts to engage PR people via CREWE may be misguided, and he may be seen as tool by some, but I don't think the colorful language you have used to describe him in addition to the attention you've paid to his Internet presence at large is a response appropriate for a Wikipedian. If you want to follow the path of Anonymous, you will find that it is incompatible with many Wikipedia policies. An appropriate first remedial step would be for you to apologize to Silver seren. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please please please read #Blocked and #Topic_ban because we had that conversation about all of that if you look (nothing we talked about on WR was actually personal info that he hadn't given out already, as I mentioned on the Talk:Corporate_Representatives_for_Ethical_Wikipedia_Engagement#Credit_Where_Due page a few days before I said anything on WR he is openly a member on their public group and openly says he is silver seren...

Yes, the insults were too much though, and I'm sorry for that now, I was just stressed because of his group following me around on wiki as mentioned at the #Blocked and #Topic_ban threads above and so we had an argument on WR - I was always nothing but civil on Wikipedia itself, he just took issue that I had joined paidwatch and was editing articles that his group had laid claim to as said before I'm happy to just not get involved in that stuff it's just toxic and no point fighting it, like everyone on WR has always said I guess. As I said, I'm happy to just edit articles and not get involved in politics in future, if Wikipedians don't want to support Jimbo when he's speaking in Wikipedia's best interests, that's their decision and I'm not going to try defend anyone anymore here if that is what people want --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 16:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to unblock, or support an unblock, on the condition that you will confine yourself for 6 months to making positive contributions in article space, using article talk space only with respect to the articles you are working on, and going elsewhere on WP only for the purpose of discussing those contributions, and not commenting on WR at all, At the end of six months, I would urge you to be very careful both as to the substance and the language of what you post elsewhere. I don't want to word it formally, but your your work after the 6 months with respect to promotional articles and paid editing after that should be confined to calling attention to problems in a the simplest possible manner, and leaving the subsequent discussion and fixing to others. As for broader issues, I expect things will have developed by then. (I do not know if others will think a condition involving WR is appropriate, but things there have effects here.) DGG ( talk ) 17:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be wise for you to limit yourself to article space and also avoid saying anything provocative on WR. Unhappily, some people are not convinced you are a net benefit and so it is best to keep a low profile. Discretion being the better part of valor, etc etc.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you thank you, I would honestly be willing to do that [34][35]

I don't think I agree that you should say namespaces though since I am pretty good with making things more readable for non-techy people and fixing stuff?[36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] just not the horrible damn drama pages? I don't want to go near them anymore at all now honestly --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 18:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be really cool then I would really appreciate that and I would not let you down I promise - I'd not even try to interpret the cpnfusing rules on what you can or cannot say anymore (I literally had no idea if you argue with someone on another site it could be held against you I thought it was scrapped as part of the WP:BADSITES stuff ) and just stick to the buildy bits, I promise... really think you so much and I'm sorry for the mess... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 00:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Selina, if you're really just going to edit articles, perhaps I should do the unblock, thus sparing DGG and Wehwalt (both good guys) the drama. I'm less likely to have it held against me, since my association with you is held against me anyway :-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 00:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I let you down the crazy vandal calling me a vegan witch can have my userpage - I wouldn't let you down, promise, if you truly beieve blocks are supposed to be to stop trouble than punitive like the rules say then it would be really really cool I dunno what else to say other than if you unblock me I'll try quickly go through a bunch of stuff I have open in tabs still that I was meaning to finish but got distracted and prove it, honestly --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 01:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's just be clear on the conditions, repeating what DGG said above: "on the condition that you will confine yourself for 6 months to making positive contributions in article space, using article talk space only with respect to the articles you are working on, and going elsewhere on WP only for the purpose of discussing those contributions, and not commenting on WR at all". We're on the same page there?

As far as Wehwalt's suggestion... "politically" that's a good idea, but that's probably a moot point if you're keeping to those conditions. You already have my advice on the WR stuff but I'll repeat it in other terms: maybe just stick to reading, digesting, and making silly comments like me and horsey do. WR is mostly chaff, but all wheat is mostly chaff ;-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 01:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient. going elsewhere on WP only for the purpose of discussing those contributions is a loophole that will allow MSK to baited/sucked into DR dramaboards. She needs mentors and to allow them to acts her "agents," if you will, when she gets crossed up with another editor. Nobody Ent 01:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 1) I agree to it (maybe I should change the banner too to make it more clear that I don't want to discuss stuff from WR here), thank you so much I'll try prove you right, I promise, thank you thank you --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 02:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oh Nobody Ent you have a point there when I was told of the dramaboard before I was worried that I had to reply or get in trouble, that is a good point, it would be nice if it was made clearer what I'm, supposed to do if someone tries to draw me into something, those templates sof you have been brought up at X suggest that if you don't reply you'll get in trouble --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 02:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, OK, how about adding one more condition: if you post on any "dramaboard" (AN, ANI, etc.) for any reason whatsoever, I'll re-block you (someone else can unblock then if your presence on the "dramaboard" is greatly desirable). Agreed? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 02:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That works --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 02:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll hit the button and explain on ANI (a page that I strongly recommend you to take off of your watchlist). One further condition that obviously follows is that you should not feel you have the right to complain if you don't stick to your agreement ;-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 02:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that is totally understandable, I'll try prove I'm more useful unblocked than blocked sorry again. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 02:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

kitteh haz nine livez and taht waz probably your last one. be careful. Alarbus (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks I'll try do my best, I'm tired as hell right now but thought I should get throwing in some stuff to prove I mean my words --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 03:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll peek in once in a while, and you can ping me if something comes up. Care to work on JFK? Alarbus (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do it! --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 04:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok

didn't do him!

Honestly, I would try and stay away from anything in the Wikipedia: namespace as much as possible. We have several other editors who are capable of handling issues with editors misbehaving. --Rschen7754 05:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with Rschen7754. However, I'd like to add that if you do feel a need to make an edit to a page in the "Wikipedia" namespace (but not the dramaboards, as you are explicitly not supposed to post to them now), but are worried that if you did make the edit you would be violating any terms of your unblock agreement, the simplest thing to do would to be either ask SB Johnny about it first; or just post a thread to your own talk page and one of us watching your talk will answer (I know I would prefer you ask questions rather than we end up at AN/I again). There is rarely any urgency to do something around here, so don't feel any frustrations about having to wait for a response.

For SB Johnny, while I strongly agree with Selina not posting to drama areas anymore, about the only things I am concerned with and would like to clarify are AIV and sockpuppet investigations. On SPI, I would have to assume she is barred from that now on the basis that it can be a drama area, but what about AIV? If Selina has a legitimate vandal to report, would it be okay for her to do that? Acalamari 12:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that she will have enough talk page stalkers for the foreseeable future that she can just leave a note there.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AIV can be iffy sometimes because "vandalism" is sometimes harder to define than one might think (particularly when it comes to "blanking" parts of BLP-ish articles, where it might actually be a content dispute with a non-communative IP user, etc.). I think Wehwalt is spot on about that in any case... perhaps it would be better if she just added a new section here with "AIV" in the title so that a conscientious page stalker can look into it. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Selina. Given your way-long-ago history with this, I really think it would be a good idea to avoid getting involved with user-template stuff for now. I know, I know... you were just replying to a reply to pre-block-and-unblock business, but I think "staying between the lines" (that's in scare quotes because it references an old TV ad for an off-road vehicle) is par for the course right now. It's also probably better to encourage people to keep giving me gruff about how overly restrictive and mean I am than it is to encourage them to complain that I'm far too lenient. Ya with me ;-)? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At #Unblock I replied to the conditions and was told "no objections" to my suggestion? *confused* I wouldn't consider those talk pages dramaboards? ? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 22:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think your line was "Roger Wilco", Selina.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's just a matter of keeping up the appearances, my dear :-).

Wehwalt is clearly campaigning for next year's straight shooter... good guy to listen to! --SB_Johnny | ^talk 00:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, just "Wilco". Nobody Ent 00:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And with that, I've added another bit of obscure trivia to my "icebreaker files". Thanks, Mr. Ent! --SB_Johnny | ^talk 01:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See this note:

• Wikipedia talk:Tools/Navigation popups#user:Mistress Selina Kyle's block status in popups

For some odd reason, popups is showing you blocked when you're not. I think it's related to the old block that evaporated. Not sure if you should talk there, but they can visit here if need be. Alarbus (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got a reply there while I was leaving this; database is corrupt (which is funny, really). Alarbus (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your "Click to start a new talk topic Α⇔Ω" doesn't work correctly for a securely (https://) logged in user -- see WP:FULLURL for details. Nobody Ent 02:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Secure server is moot these days; no worries. Alarbus (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh why is it moot? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 04:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because the en:server is now secure. Links to the secure server now <strike>https</strike>. Alarbus (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sSomeone should update that page then I would normally but yeah --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 05:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http:// is always insecure due to the danger of Packet sniffing; but is a moot point. Nobody Ent 10:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean when sites copy my pages onto their sites that the link to talk to me won't go to Wikipedia anymore because the "base page" would be their own website? I put the {{user page rounded}}/{{user page}}on my page and that uses a full link and doesn't seem that anyone's complained about it (or fixed it if it should be)? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minor problem with the two links above was that anybody using one of the two secure Wikipedia variants (i.e. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Main_Page or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) would have found themselves logged out after following them. Feel free to restore the hardcoded links if you want, but I would recommend to include the "en." language subdomain so that at least the site-wide javascript logic will recognize and dynamically change them accordingly. Amalthea 15:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've written User talk:Mistress Selina Kyle/unblock conditions; messages have been left on SB_Johnny & DGG's talk page asking them to review and edit. Nobody Ent 11:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied with some stuff from #Unblock, and I'm not sure if a separate page is good because a lot of it just going to be repeating stuff said here already though? and it's also a bit of an unpleasant a thing to have as part my user page stuff it's like Stocks or something when the discussion is all here anyway --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's in response to [46]. The discussion here was informal; a concise clear statement will benefit both you and Wikipedia. Nobody Ent 14:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can't bring themselves to read through a discussion and want someone else to tell them than looking for themselves, they probably aren't capable of making much good judgements really, both the idea of reluctance to look at sources before commenting on them, and "too long don't read" are terrible attitudes for there to be on an enyclopaedia how a decision is arrived at is just as important as the decision itself really or you lose context and background[47][48] -Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 14:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, with the world producing five exabytes of information by next year [49], accurate précis are only becoming more valuable, not less. Nobody Ent 15:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pff, never trust a grand vizier --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 15:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving this message as you're listed as a current participant of WikiProject Business. I was informed yesterday that the current World Factoring Yearbook (circa £150) is now free for download as an ebook. It's a matter of filling out this form. I'm not sure if you'll find this useful as a reliable source, but I thought I should let you know that it's freely available online. I apologise in advance if this doesn't interest you! All the best, The Cavalry (Message me) 15:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've e-mailed you on the last e-mail I know you to have used. Please send your reply to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org as soon as possible. Thank you, AGK [•] 16:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I replied, sorry been having arguments about other stuff --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 04:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Please see our further response, to which your reply is also requested. Regards, AGK [•] 19:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited District nurse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doctors (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to be considered as your official mentor anymore. I don't think I can help anymore and at this point my loyalties are conflicted. If, as I suggested, you create some real content work and give evidence of being serious, I might reconsider but other than that I don't see any canines in this belli that I have pro-fund feelings about.VolunteerMarek 04:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you fired Selina from Wikipedia altogether, although I think it's more likely ArbCom did that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it, because Marek was nice before and I'm disappointed in this, but I would say to ignore his rather rude message above because um, he's having some kind of "wiki-breakdown" I think and is angry at me for what I posted, as this message, at 04:17 seemingly in retaliation 4 minutes later after I posted about a sockpuppet of a friend at 04:13, and then he replied at 05:48: [50]

As for why I haven't been editing, I just haven't been in the mood with all the arguing on WR... after I read about Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Herschelkrustofsky and then found a smaller ring of sockpuppets (because we never banned any) on Wikipedia Review too ("It's the blimp, Frank", "BananaShowerMonkey" and back as Waalkes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) here)

Marek was nice before (I hope he feels better later) but he seems to support the "cabal" on WR that defends "regulars" no matter how bad they are and even when people like Herschelkrustofsky abuse WR itself whilst being paid by a political party for over 6 years hiding that they were not just a hardline POV but actually being paid for it whilst in a position of staff, abusing sockpuppets and setting up those sub-forums specifically to attack on the Party卐's enemies, using the sockpuppets to make it seem there is more demand for criticism of them than there actually is [51]... when it is meant to be a neutral forum :

...and during Herschelkrustofsky's time sockpuppeting over the years[52][53][54][55] with "It's the Blimp, Frank" (as well as all the Wikipedia stuff) whilst being paid by the Larouche cult created forums to massively abuse the Party卐's enemies with his "puppet theater"[56][57]

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Fri 13th March 2009, 6:39am) "Now he's engaged in an interesting back-and-forth with Leatherstocking, who opposed one of his grander reverts. Will seems to have a special juju that makes him impervious to Leatherstocking's sarcasm." ...Sheer Narcissistic megalomania-like gloating in the third person... Special:Contributions/Leatherstocking (click userpage to see who the IP evidence they mentioned was for...)

— The sick thing is, if you look through that one, it went back as far back as July 2007 (starting off with racist stuff against jews) and ended in September 2009, the Poetguy stuff happened around May 2009, so all that time he was trying to manipulate people from WR into the Party's battles to defend "Leatherstocking"... whilst pretending he was not like that >:|

I'm the one that did Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Websense,_Inc. before and that kind of sneaky manipulation of people annoys me quite a bit, worse when it's not just some nolife dork hiding from bans but an actual political party or corporation... the manipulative behaviour some people do here was one of the main problems I had with the admin that blocked me in 2006 too saying it was "a community ban" when there was no actual discussion, just emailing people that they had better not challenge it because of the hate for Wikipedia Review... It's funny because some people on WR are actually making conspiracy theories there that it's you someone from you lot/arbcom to blame that I am challenging the creepiness -.- I wish someone had told me, because it would have been so much better if I had known to check his activity more to know he was prone to doing that kind fo stuff before letting him stay as an admin years ago But it's too late now, it's the same everywhere humans gather in groups it's just such disappointing tribal clique behaviour... there's so few people that will actually stand up and say something when people are doing something wrong if it doesn't benefit themselves somehow... turtles all the way down...

*sigh*

If any nice person would like to try the "mentor" thing again please let it be no one in any way associated with WR please this time