User talk:Mistress Selina Kyle

Click to start a new talk topic Α⇔Ω

Click to email ⇒✉

Congratulations

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

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

Stop

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)"

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)

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)

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)

Hello, Mistress Selina Kyle. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
Message added 16:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Many hands make light work

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

TalkBack

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

Disambiguation link notification

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)

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)

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)

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)

Websense

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

(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)

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

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion

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)

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)

Talkback

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

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)

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)

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).

CREWE

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)

Link to the plain and simple conflict of interest guide on WP:COI

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Focus on topic at hand

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)

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)

(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)

@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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

(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)

On reverting

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)

Thank you

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)