User talk:Mistress Selina Kyle/unblock conditions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Unblock conditions[edit]

Mistress Selina Kyle is unblocked on the condition that she will confine herself for 6 months to making contributions in article space, using article talk space only with respect to the articles she is working on, and going elsewhere on Wikipedia only for the purpose of discussing those contributions, and not commenting on Wikipedia Review at all. Selina will not initiate a post on any dispute resolution board, especially AN, ANI, WP:SPI, WP:AIV. In the event she becomes aware of edits where notification on said boards is appropriate she will leave a note at the bottom of her talk page explaining the condition. In the event she is named by another editor on said boards, she will discuss the matter with a third party on her talk page before replying on the board.

These restrictions are effective from 22 February 2012 to 22 July 2012.


I was posting around 2/3am last night and didn't realise you were changing the terms from what I'd agreed to Face-sad.svg I thought it was going to be ok? Face-sad.svg

From User talk:Mistress Selina Kyle#Unblock:
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)
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)
Thank you thank you, I would honestly be willing to do that Face-sad.svg[1][2]
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?[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] just not the horrible damn drama pages? I don't want to go near them anymore at all now honestly Face-sad.svg --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 18:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I have no objection.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Ditto. DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you look at the diffs, I know you might feel strongly on that but I can't see how stuff like that could be controversial? I mean they're no worse than normal article discussions I think? Face-sad.svg --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 13:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a draft; an effort and understanding and codifying the terms of your unblock. No change in terms is intended, which is why I invited DGG/SB_Johnny to comment and edit as appropriate. Nobody Ent 14:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok it just looks like it's moving towards saying that templates and wikiprojects count as dramaboards too and I don't think they really near as problematic cos projects are basically the same as article talk pages but centralised I think? and templates are just well, talk about templates lol Face-smile.svg I dunno, it's up to you if you want to change it I can't say anything but as I said before I think I'd be more use than not, several people thanked me for the stuff I did there (some of the template listing pages are in Wikipedia too like that sockpuppets one Elen of the Roads the arbitrator thanked me for making - there's this too[13] Face-sad.svg) --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 15:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Drafting notes:

  • Unblock statement used informal term dramaboards -- it's unclear to me whether content boards (e.g. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard are in scope or out of scope. Nobody Ent 11:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I think it's better to just stay out of the Wikipedia namespace in general, since that's where the drama happens. It's very encouraging that plenty of people have been popping up to discuss things with her on her talk page: if that continues to be the case, her voice will be part of those discussions anyway. --SB_Johnny | talk 11:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've intentionally dropped the adjective positive from contributions as it seems vague and subject to gaming -- can we substitute non-disruptive or an equivalent? Nobody Ent 11:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Just "contributions" is fine, no need to find a substitution for "positive"--SB_Johnny | talk 11:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if this needs to be said, but if another admin wants to reset this at any point to negotiate laxer restrictions, I'd have no problem with that. The ones I'm suggesting are intentionally draconian, in the interests of easing the minds of those who ardently feel she should be blocked. --SB_Johnny | talk 11:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
    • You guys do realize that this can be deleted per CSD U1 any time Selina wishes, do you? Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Not per WP:DELTALK, as noted at CSD U1. 15:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobody Ent (talkcontribs)
I don't think it matters too much whether she could tag this page for deletion or not, anyway: it would be an understatement to say that it would be a bad idea for her to place a deletion tag here; plus it's not like deleting the page would remove the limits she is under. Acalamari 15:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I was asked if I consider the terms acceptable. I do. , except that the word "specifically" needs to be changed to "especially" there are multiple other possible places, and "specifically" makes it limit to the ones mentioned DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Done. Nobody Ent 17:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)