User talk:Mistress Selina Kyle

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

Contents

[edit] Reason

( me = Wikipedia Review .com/?showuser=1 ) (Selina, I don't think this link works, or maybe you have to be logged in to WR to view it. I can't even create a login because it won't accept my email address. Just FYI. --Fang Aili talk 00:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC))

I think it's login yeah just checked... I guess we do need to redo the whole registration thing, it got tightened up a lot because of sockpuppets we blocked free accounts (I'm not sure how me making a new account here can really be called sockpuppeting when I made no attempt whatsoever to hide who I was!) from some weirdos.. free email accounts like gmail etc were really heavily abused by certain people, I think there may be a bit that says email wikipediareview@gmail.com if you want to request an account somewhere --Mistress Selina Kyle 01:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I was figuring enough years (and when I say years, I mean literally years) have passed now for things to be treated a bit more maturely now? Bearing in mind that I was mainly banned for stuff I didn't myself do but for associating with suppressive persons at Wikipedia Review?

Yeah, I got into a few arguments, but so did everybody, if you look at that Request for Comment from the people involved in banning me Wikipedia Review seems to be the main reason I was banned which is against current blocking policy and the failed WP:BADSITES?

Most people agreed Linuxbeak was right to unban me, and a few people commented that the people who claimed they had left never actually did and were just posturing:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Linuxbeak#Outside_view_by_Avillia

I just never even bothered challenge it because the corruption seemed so rife it made me give up on Wikipedia... It was a lynch mob from cliques of friends known to work together on secret IRC channels, abuse of the emailuser function and secretly-run mailing lists (which break the whole idea of transparency that Wikipedia is meant to have, and I think al ot of people would agree this attitude has seriously corroded it more and more over time from what it could have been if the "open talk pages" vision had kept up)

It really, really, was like that, I'm not saying it in any kind of "so unfair" way, it honestly was that I was punished for what others said more than anything I actually did, as a scapegoat - and Slimvirgin had a conflict of interest because I had called her fat once on WR, years ago... if you read my comments above I said yes I was a little argumentative sometimes and I said am sorry about that, I was young... but usually it was for the right reasons)... I'm not a bad person, and I am being mature about it or I wouldn't be here at all, I'd be childishly sockpuppeting like everyone else seems to... I made a choice to stand up and say what they did was wrong - at the time it just made me fed up of Wikipedia, I gave up on it - and helped mould Wikipedia Review into something I think is worthwhile to have open discussion on Wikipedia and the issues around it, even if sometimes that free speech is abused it's better to be reactive than shutting down discussion (in that request for comment page, people noted in the years since I took charge more it got a lot cleaner from what it used to be)

The attacks on Linuxbeak and the fake leaving of Wikipedia to put pressure on him seemed to get the result desired in driving one of your most level-headed, kind, users off the wiki as well as me (I freely admit I can be rather fiery but I have got a lot better), reading back on it it really does look like people baying for blood, especially bad was lumping me intogether with Blu Aardvark who was a known anti-semitic troll (and banned from WR) --Mss. Selina Kyle (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

p.s. It was a complete attempt at lying manipulation/smearing that I didn't make positive edits that was another part of the smear campaign that took place on those pages without me being able to comment to prove it wrong:

teen This user is a teenager.

, barely anyone was using it because it was ageist and condescending, I changed it and now 1000+ use it (proof press END/scroll to bottom)

  • I made the original (originally deleted)
Eye makeup.jpg This user identifies as a lipstick lesbian.

(proof press END/scroll to bottom) which is used on... less than 50 pages, nice going Wikipedia you obviously offer a very welcoming environment for people who differ from the norm

  • I made the original (originally deleted)
Bifemale.svg This user is a bi female.

(proof press END/scroll to bottom) which is used on... less than 50 pages, nice going Wikipedia you obviously offer a very welcoming environment for people who differ from the norm and

Bimale.svg This user is a bi male.

I was the one who alerted Jimbo in 2006 about the typo in the link to his personal appeal which was stopping people being able to read it or donate: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Personal appeal, it was fixed a little after my message

I kept NPOV and defended Jimmy (way before any ban stuff also way back in january 2006) against Eloquence, Erik Möller - now Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation(!) who kept trying to compare nude modelling to porn presumably as some way to one-up himself over Jimmy, maybe it worked I guess [9] [10]

--Mistress Selina Kyle (talk) 08:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I, CJ Marsicano, hereby award Mistress Selina Kyle a well deserved Tireless Defender Of Wikipedian's Free Speech for her stance against the Great 2006 Userbox Purge. Your efforts are greatly appreciated! 00:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Take care, fellow bass-wielding punk rock warrior... ;) -- Cjmarsicano 00:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


Oh, are you talking about the Greek stuff I put on the bottom? (I actually don't speak a word of Greek). εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Καλά, τα ελληνικά είναι πάρα πολύ δύσκολο να μαθευτούν. Μιλώ ισπανικό και πορτογαλικά, αλλά κανένα ελληνικά! Μιλάτε τα ελληνικά? εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Obviously, yes : ) εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Εδώ είναι ένα αστέρι για την ύπαρξη τόσο καλό! Τα ισπανικά και πορτογαλικά είναι θαυμάσιοι γλώσσες, και πολύ παρόμοια. Το ι γράφει σωστά?

What I am trying to say: Here is a barnstar for being so kind! Spanish and Portuguese are wonderful languages, and very similar. Am I writing [Greek] correctly? εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

^χα.αχ^ --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 22:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

To thank you for your efforts defending free expression by users on many places, I´d like to award you the Outspoken Barnstars! Larix 09:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC) PS I'm not sure where on your user page you'd like to put these. I put them here so you can move them yourself.
I messed up the tfd-tagging on many places, and you corrected it. Which was quite laborious, I think. So I find myself awarding you yet another barnstar. Larix 12:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I award you the Surreal Barnstar for staying in the game, for being a character, and for having opinions and not being afraid to state them. Cheers! --Fang Aili 22:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

}}

You are currently listed as banned by the community. This was before my time so I can't really speak for them but people apparently thought you were disturbing the wiki. I don't want to come off as mean but the rules stated that I had to report you. --Thebirdlover (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

What you can do though is post an unblock request on your main account. Since you were blocked 4-5 years ago, they'll probably unblock you. --Thebirdlover (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I've heard of Blu Aardvark. I always thought he was just a very persistent troll. --Thebirdlover (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

And LinuxBeak I haven't heard of that much, I'm gonna see if the internet can tell me info on what happened. --Thebirdlover (talk) 06:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Being very familiar with this case (I was very active back then, and kinda involved) I agree that MSK should request an unblock on her original talk page and some discussion of an unban proposal happens in WP:AN/I. I think Selina reformed herself with some of her WR involvement, by banning racist trolls out of WR and preventing some types of ousting from the site, which made it much more readable and acceptance within the Wikipedia community. The main reason why she was banned in the first place was though her association with some of these banned users. I'll comment and give further evidence if needed. Secret account 06:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)}}

Uh, it appears that you aren't currently blocked...despite the last entry in your block log being an indefinite block. That is very strange. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I think it's because she's using an alternative account. There should be a mention an unblock in AN/I and preferably an discussion with ArbCom as this was a very sensitive matter back in 2006. I will support an unbanning and some mentoring unless otherwise convinced. Secret account 07:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Selina, I can't tell if you're unbanned or not; the block log says you're still banned but you also have recent edits. Anyway, like Secret, I'll support an unban unless otherwise convinced. (Is there a discussion going on somewhere else?) I don't know what happened 6 years ago, but I think enough time has passed that whatever it was, we can put it behind us. You seem to care enough about Wikipedia to come back after all this time, so I see no harm in unblocking you. Cheers and good luck, Fang Aili talk 23:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] A kitten for you!

Iris cat.jpg

pressed that shiny new kitten button

had to be done

Mistress Selina Kyle (talk) 07:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


Can someone please create an arbitration request on this maybe or something, anything? it seems like a lot of people are disappearing off the requests for unblock but I am not being either denied or unblocked - it seems a bit like admins are going "not going to get involved" because of the administrator political drama involved --Mistress Selina Kyle (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia Review .com/?showuser=1

Hi Selina, I'd like to help you, but I don't know what the next step is. I'm unfamiliar with unblock request procedure (and the guide is rather complex). --Fang Aili talk 16:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
It seems a bit broken cos you can't post on any of those pages without ban-avoiding, which of course I could do quite easily, but I'm trying to do things by the book here cos I don't think it was right that I was banned and it should be stood up to... catch 22... and while I'm sure admins are reading this page none of them are doing anything about it, no one has the guts anymore these days I guess... --Mistress Selina Kyle (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

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. --Fang Aili talk 18:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

thanks for trying --Mistress Selina Kyle (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock request

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

Mistress Selina Kyle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock)

Request reason:

too long see below --Mistress Selina Kyle (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Claims to have become more mature in the years following being banned, then immediately compares the users who banned her with a lynch mob? Yeah, not convinced. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you abuse this procedure by making too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page as long as you are blocked.

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

Mistress Selina Kyle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock)

Request reason:

too long see above

Decline reason:

Petulantly repeating the previous request does not make it any more convincing. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you abuse this procedure by making too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page as long as you are blocked.

Have you all the background though before you passed judgement? if you came here via the WP:ANI you can't have yet before you said that?
It really, really, was like that, I'm not saying it in any kind of "so unfair" way, it honestly was that I was punished for what others said more than anything I actually did, as a scapegoat - and Slimvirgin had a conflict of interest because I had called her fat once on WR, years ago... if you read my comments below I said yes I was a little argumentative sometimes and I am sorry about that, I was young... but usually it was for the right reasons)... I'm not a bad person, and I am being mature about it or I wouldn't be here at all, I'd be childishly sockpuppeting like everyone else seems to... I made a choice to stand up and say what they did was wrong - at the time it just made me fed up of Wikipedia, I gave up on it - and helped mould Wikipedia Review into something I think is worthwhile to have open discussion on Wikipedia and the issues around it, even if sometimes that free speech is abused it's better to be reactive than shutting down discussion (in that request for comment page, people noted in the years since I took charge more it got a lot cleaner from what it used to be) --Mistress Selina Kyle 20:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Please don't immediately put up another unblock request after it's declined, that's considered very poor form. If you're serious about wanting to attempt another unblock request, please read WP:NICETRY and then start fresh. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The rules say I am allowed to ask again, and looking at it while I'm sure I could phrase it more flowery if I did it would end up drawing attention away from the important points when it's already quite long.
It seems a bit like you are ignoring the that there's a discussion on at the board, why did you not attempt to discuss but instead hit the hammer, to follow on from your claim against my maturity, that seems a little immature to me, as well as linking to the otherwise helpful advice page as "WP:NICETRY" when the official link is WP:GAB seems rather obnoxious and needlessly aggressive, in fact I'm surprised that shortcut hasn't been deleted when it's main purpose seems to be for admins to textually teabag people.
If you lot want to burn your bridges, fine, but I am trying to be reasonable one last time - and you are acting like a bully. "Yeah, not convinced" is also quite rude and for the first reply I get on here, a bit depressing, I thought this place might have grown up a bit. I was never rude to you, why was it so hard to just post a civil response and maybe reply to my question?
If you took offence at my moving the posts I am sorry but that was because of it breaking when I put the full explanation in the thing, I've moved stuff better now, I hope, after reading those rules - but I can't really summarise more without ending up making the request as long as the RFC - I was hoping that admins would have more respect to read the details of a matter before making judgements seemingly mostly based on personal dislike for what I said than whether I deserved to be banned based on evidence and considering a lot of people get away with far worse than a couple of arguments, and per WP:BADSITES not being policy, banning me just because I run a forum that allows open discussion is not a legitimate reason... --Mistress Selina Kyle 21:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Starblind, there's an ongoing discussion at AN/I so how about you chill out a little and get a little less trigger happy? I know it's great fun to shoot down people by declining their unblock requests and then pouring salt on their wounds by pointing them in useless direction like WP:NICETRY but seriously, leave it alone and let other people consider it.
Also, the fact that you give as reason then immediately compares the users who banned her with a lynch mob pretty much shows that you did NOT EVEN BOTHER reading the unblock request.
Selina, you should probably just ignore Starblind's tendentiousness on your talk page for now and just let this work itself out on AN/I.VolunteerMarek 21:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I'll shut up and let it be --Mistress Selina Kyle 21:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Marek, if you click on WP:NICETRY you'll see it's the redirect to the "Composing your request to be unblocked" section of Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, which is extremely relevant to the discussion here. MSK's unblock request is a textbook example of how NOT to request an unblock. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ANI#Mistress_Selina_Kyle.27s_unblock_request discussion

I am replying here because I can't talk on the page... I wasn't "canvassing" it was because I can't talk on the debate (without going around the ban) so the only place I can is email... the whole system seems to be built to give as little right of reply for blocked people as possible - I thought especially that emailing the mediation cabal and wikipedia signpost (because it's similar to wikipedia review) would be a right thing to do... not that one of the heads of the mediation cabal (User:Steven_Zhang on those posts) would attack me for asking them to look at my case...?

I didn't "shift blame" that indicates the people saying that haven't read it fully because below I agreed and said I shouldn't have got into the arguments I did below before already, don't just brush that off because I said the ban was unfair...

Elkman you said on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Linuxbeak#Commendation._.28Independent_view_from_Kim_Bruning.29 where it said "Beyond all expectations, Linuxbeak even convinced several wikipedia review people to come back to wikipedia and help out, despite their own personal emnity. However, certain members of the wikipedia community have deliberately and conciously chosen to block Linuxbeaks efforts." you replied "A very good summation of the situation." but now you are blaming me because someone else talked about you and blaming me for not monitoring everything to censor it? It's like attacking Jimmy for willy on wheels... — I didn't engage in any "blatant breaches of privacy, and other disruptive activity related to Wikipedia" whatsoever, you don't use me as a scapegoat for your issues with other editors that post on Wikipedia Review... As other people said in the request for comment I linked near the top of the page I actually did a lot to reform it and prevent some of the nastier people posting stuff... and we currently remove any personal information posted on the site (we don't have to, but we do)... again it's this idea that I should be punished not for what I said but because I am not aggressive to other people as some people want?

I am trying to reach out and discuss with you and all you do is throw it in my face... --Mistress Selina Kyle 23:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Five and a half years is a pretty long break, longer than my entire wiki career and all things being equal I'd be inclined to support an unblock. But I do have a few questions:
  1. Wikipedia Review is still involved in the outing of editors, though we do have reputable Wikipedians who edit there as well, But I've heard it alleged that it tracks IPs of visitors, and I gather you are at least partially responsible for that site. Is that true, and are you currently or have you in the past been involved in outing Wikpedians?
  2. If we unblock you will you comply with policies on subjects such as wp:Outing?
  3. If we unblock you what do you intend to do here?
  4. Apart from Miss Selina Kyle have you done any other edits here since you were blocked and arguably banned?
  5. Your unblock request may have breached wp:Canvass, personally I find it harsh to judge someone who hasn't been editing for 66 months for being unfamiliar with our rules. But could you tell us how many editors you emailed your unblock request to and how you chose them.

If you are unblocked I think you'll find we are a different site than when you left - Wikipedia is twice as old now as it was then and hundreds of millions of edits have happened here in that time. I hope you'll take a bit of time to acclimatise and at least test your preconceptions, especially if they are influenced by WR :) ϢereSpielChequers 23:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  1. no WR is not involved in "outing" editors it's been a rule for ages that personal details get removed ... as for IPs that's a lie spread by a couple of people trying to cause trouble that we do anything with IPs at all, it's like any other forum you technically could look up but that stuff is buried away in logs that get deleted automatically every so often (I don't actually even know if someone aksed me, we pay for the server we don't own the actual computer) anyway...
  2. Yes because I don't break it anyway! lol :/
  3. Just edit probably... I know I could have done that without uIt just looked at wikipedia, and it seemed not right that I should still be banned when much of it wasn't actually for what I did but seemingly scapegoating as a replacement for other people -.-
  4. Nope actually like I said in the reasons the whole thing made me just go "screw it" and concentrate on WR... (the fact that some of the articles I quoted in #Reasons have been barely if at all had any improvement on them since I left kinda shows that - like I said, Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#The_.22average_Wikipedian.22 pretty much ensures you have little non-mainstream stuff on here, and then the culture turns off yet more people who aren't "square" enough - I don't think some of my friends would even want to try) and got distracted well, growing up and having fun too ;) some people seem to treat wikipedia as their entire social life and I think that's a problem, I even said that years ago when I was banned and still a teenager on here that people spend too much time at their computers and get out of touch because of it
  5. Oh I explained that above, I didn't count though - I thought contacting the mediation cabal and people that contribute to the wikipedia signpost (similar to wikipedia review but on wikipedia) would be the right thing to do since no one much was replying on the board, I was trying to start a discussion
  6. I learn fast, I did some editing to show that I can still write - Special:Contributions/Mss._Selina_Kyle - on the WP:ANI they are saying that is making them strongly against, but I thought I actually did positive stuff on stuff that doesn't get much attention... I didn't make any attempt to hide or anything when I could have just not said a word and used a different name like everyone and their dog seems to these days? --Mistress Selina Kyle 00:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Selina, thanks for that. that's enough for me to support an unblock FWIW. Looking at your Websense edits I'd suggest that if you get unblocked you try and start back by picking some topics that you don't have strong opinions about. I don't have any current involvement in Websense, but have used it in the past, and seem to remember that Malware was one of the default categories of sites that it blocked. It wouldn't surprise me if it also blocks pirated software sites, and I wouldn't count either of those as censorship. Oh and by the way, whether or not this unblock succeeds, kudos for wanting to come back, and for trying to do it the right way. ϢereSpielChequers 00:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I cited sources for all the things it blocked, some from Websense's own website! ;)
I'll mention it only because you mention your own experiences, i know personal experiences/original resource are not valid sources for an article, but: - when I was at school, all the sites to do with paganism were blocked as "occult" (I went to a girls' grammar school) it just gets totally left up to whoever the guy doing it is, it's pretty bad like that, the people employing admins etc pretty much just leave them to do their thing and so they get to push their own political/religious views on hundreds of kids if they wish, pretty twisted I think - it's insidious how much power they put in the hands of unelected individuals, especially when they do it in public libraries too - which for less economically advantaged people is often all the internet they ever have - and mccaffee are then selling their censorship software to middle-east dictatorships too
and thanks :) not particularly optimistic cos of the people wanting blood (that link to that ban page was pretty soberng, it's like a Heads On Pikes page) but I thought it was worth asking anyway --Mistress Selina Kyle 01:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Mistress Selina Kyle: Is it correct that you are the head administrator of Wikipedia Review, and that you have the power to delete individual messages and to block accounts? If I'm mistaken, could you please clarify your role there? I am opposing your unblock on the basis of you being ultimately responsible for the contents of that website, but if I'm wrong I'd be happy to be corrected.   Will Beback  talk  08:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Because of the volume of stuff that it is these days I leave that mostly to volunteer mods though - like Wikipedia does... punishing me because you don't like what others say is like blaming Jimmy Wales personally for every thing someone says ever on here, it's just not right. It's up to the readers to decide and make their views felt from facts and open discussion . Have you seen what ED articles are like, now compare how WR threads are at least mostly sane? There's not much else that can be done really short of totalitarianism and shutting WR down certainly wouldn't help anything it would just go somewhere else, very likely under someone a lot worse than me - do you really want that? It definitely needs to exist - if WR was shut down it'd be silencing all the good people than the people who just want to have a moan too, I think most people are educated enough to ignore the crazies. The act of allowing (mostly) free speech is not a crime by any definition you have, and the people on that board blocking on that basis do not show the kind of judgement that you would expect administrators have, it seems small-minded and bullying and in some cases outright lying that I made no valuable contributions - I even went through and listed a whole bunch and that's still not good enough for some people, it seems like they just want blood...
It's a known fact as people said in the Linuxbeak RFC that when I was around more I cleaned it up a LOT and we made a rule - completely voluntarily - against posting any personal details, we didn't have to do that but we did and despite the grandstanders that's been true for years now... It's a lot better than it could be like an ED forum or something... have you SEEN what ED's articles are like? it was a lot worse before I kicked some of the more nutty people out:
  • There used to be a version of the site by proboards we later found out one of the admins was a neo-nazi who posted to stormfront. I set up a new forum and said bye...
    • I've seen stuff like this on nazi blogs before: [11]proof he's a nazi "“Selina”, the administrator [..]accuses me [..]of “Nazi-like racism against Jews”. [..] Selina’s behavior, like the fanatical Zionist")
  • Here's a comment from a troll wiki (I should point out that it's so fringe that no one really cares about updating it, but I just googled it up for you): "It was long ago taken over by loyal Wikipedians under the "Selina" made-up persona."[12] < !
  • and there's been a bunch of complaints in the past when I had more free time to moderate that
"I am opposing your unblock on the basis of you being ultimately responsible for the contents of that website" is not a valid reason to ban anyone per any of your own stated rules... --Mistress Selina Kyle 12:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
You may see yourself as the equivalent to Jimmy Wales, but Wikipedia and Wikipedia Review are not comparable nor are your respective roles. I don't see anything in your statement where you deny having control over WR, including who can post there and what they can say. I'm not sure what a voluntary rule is, but personal details are posted on WR routinely despite it. Are you actually unaware of the contents of WR?
Is it you who appoints the moderators? Are they preventing you from deleting material which you don't think should be hosted on your website?
Can you also explain the non-public forums on WR? How do people gain access to them? Do they discuss Wikipedia editors in terms that can't be made public? What sort of contributions do you make to them?   Will Beback  talk  13:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
None of these questions have any impact on my ability to contribute here, that is like a witch-hunt... I'm not here on behalf of wikipedia review, I'm here as me. If you don't like what WR says go take it up there, not with me...
I never said Wikipedia Review is the same as Wikipedia - but blaming me for stuff that I haven't actually done is the same chain of broken logic exactly, you can't say that it is not? (though it's funny you say that actually as I've been a few times accused of being Jimmy[13] ...through to USAMRIID lol)
I mean the rule about no personal information is voluntary in that there's no law saying we couldn't allow it if we wanted to - but we don't - you say people post stuff well of course that's going to happen on an open forum just like people do on Wikipedia, but haven't you noticed anything that is not public information gets quickly removed the same as Wikipedia? Where is this personal information you claim? Like I said, have you SEEN ed? it could be like that, but it's not... reread what I said, please? As for that last bit I really don't think you have a right to be asking that, I've heard about your tiff with Herschelkrustofsky and no I did not make him a mod, that was Lir or Somey years ago, I can't even remember - you might have noticed that he doesn't post LaRouche propaganda on the site because he knows no one would take him seriously if he did[14][15] whatever he has said on Wikipedia (which I haven't had much time to pay attention to) he acts pretty neutrally as a mod from all that I have seen whatever his othe faults are, that's the thing, anyone deserves at least one second chance... - and as for private discussions between moderators on another site, especially not in the context of banning me here... none of is this is in any way a valid reason to ban anyone per any of the rules... --Mistress Selina Kyle 13:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Re: your email

Nevertheless, WP:BAN is pretty clear on "A site banned editor is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, on any account or unregistered user, under any and all circumstances, with no exceptions." If you want to demonstrate good faith, WP:OFFER suggests editing a different Wikimedia wiki, not the one you're blocked on. Instead, in my opinion, you demonstrated your disregard of this community's norms once again. Max Semenik (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

i deliberately made no attempt to hide who I was I was trying to show my good intentions in editing positively, if you look at the contributions :( Special:Contributions/Mss._Selina_Kyle - if I was 'socking' I would have used a different name and you would have been none the wiser like everyone else seems to... I was trying to do the right thing... that's not "disregard" I haven't been here for years I haven't read that stuff... it's living in the real world, you should be doing something about all the corporate PR campaigns going on around you by people who NEVER name who they are wrting on behalf of when they are editing here - not attacking people for allowing debate on other sites that sometimes needs to talk about serious issues that just can't be done on here... --Mistress Selina Kyle 13:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
You're still the same: do not means do not, even if you want it to be otherwise. The banning policy was essentially the same at your time, by the way. Max Semenik (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I didn't realise there was a such a firm rule and I'm sorry, WP:AGF? I did nothing but positive things to try show my good intentions, and WP:IAR which has been around since Jimmy (and Larry, lets be fair) first started the site says the most important thing [than any drama] is the actual encyclopaedia... like I pointed out in my reasons, much of the niche-on-Wikipedia yet-common-in-the-wider-world articles were pretty much left untouched since I left... WP:AGF? *sigh* --Mistress Selina Kyle 14:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


Could you (or another admin per the rules) please remove your attack on me on the WP:ANI page where you called me a "troll" and the flat out lie that you where you just straight out lied about "corresponding privately"... You NEVER corresponded to me privately not once, that gives people reading the discussion on WP:ANI a false impression and is disruptive, underhand behaviour that no administrator should be involved in...
This appears to be triggered by me sending MaxSem an email in a genuine attempt to find out why he apparently hates my personality so much after I read on WP:ANI stating "negative personal traits" I sent this "P.S. what negative personal traits do you mean, I'm genuinely interested in your opinion... I was at school then, though, you really can't judge me on getting into arguments then I think... bearing in mind I was bi at a girls school don't you think MAYBE i was often feelin well a bit harassed?" and any checkuser can confirm that was the content of my email unless you're saying that is "trolling" too? I am often quite paranoid about talking about myself but this is stuff from page before WR even existed so no point trying to hide stuff - I freely admitted I didn't put my points across as well as I should have back then but I was young,that was my main crime, I accepted my mistakes as mentioned before in my reasons at the top of the page, and have tried to learn from them... this is almost 6 years later...
If you are going to falsely claim you engaged in "correspondance" with me you won't mind showing the email headers? --Mistress Selina Kyle 14:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion with TechnoSymbiosis

Hi Selina, you should be able to reply here. First things first, please read up on the phrase 'correlation is not causation'. You made a comment in your email to me about gender that may well be an example of the former, but certainly isn't an example of the latter. The hurdles you face at the moment aren't gender-based (nor sexual preference-based, nor lifestyle-based). As best as people at Wikipedia try to abide by WP:AGF, you have the unique complication of being the leader of a website that has a very poor reputation amongst many in the Wikipedia community, and in particular a reputation for certain types of behaviour (such as personal attacks) that aren't just unacceptable here but would generally be considered socially unacceptable as a whole.

You said you don't know what I want from you, from my comment in the ANI thread. I'll try to explain. I don't have a lot of experience with it, but when unban requests are handled here there tend to be a few things that the requester is expected to cover. One is that they need to acknowledge their own conduct and culpability that led to their ban. I understand that you genuinely believe that you are the victim of others' behaviour, and I have no way of verifying that with the details of your ban buried so deeply in the arcane depths, but there are almost no cases of a person copping a sustained ban without there being something that they did, even if they weren't the chief instigator of the problem. This is what you need to focus on, looking at your own part in what happened, acknowledging the mistakes you made and committing not to make them again. But more than that, you need to do so without pointing at others. If someone else was 90% responsible and you were 10% responsible, you should only speak about the 10% and ignore the 90% altogether. This would show that you're interested in addressing and atoning for your own actions, rather than giving the appearance that you're shifting blame or diluting responsibility: "I messed up and I'm sorry" sounds a lot better than "I messed up but it was mostly other people who were at fault". Someone in the ANI thread said that humility is really quite important in unbanning requests and they're right.

The other thing I think you need to be careful of is arguing and pointing at rules. This isn't the time for that. This is the time you need to really be demonstrating that you can listen to the concerns of other people, that you can take them in and at least make an effort to accommodate them. This is where you need to show that you can accept criticism and make changes for the better because of it. That creates the right impression on those watching. Digging in, being stubborn, arguing semantics or 'rules-lawyering' is going to create the opposite impression: that you're combative rather than accommodating, unrepentant rather than responsible, etc.

So that comes back to my original vote. What you need to do is show that you understand your part in what led to your original block, you need to focus solely on that and not the actions of others (remember, 'but he poked me first!' is not the way to solve this problem) and commit to reading as many of our current policies and guidelines as you can and ask if you're uncertain of anything. That latter is just a commitment, you don't have to read the new policies unless you're actually unbanned but you need to promise that you'll do that. If you're unbanned, you're going to be under a lot of scrutiny so you're going to have to tread very carefully. It's better to take the time to read as much as you can first before jumping in, to make sure you make as few mistakes as possible.

Hope this answers your questions. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it's just important for me to correct stuff when I see things that are false, it's a kind of reflex sometimes and I should have been more diplomatic, I was just feeling a bit like I was being witch-hunted especially after how I remembered it being even worse before. I agree I should have done things better, I'm sorry. I honestly just want to get on with actually editing whilst not feeling like a sneaky weirdo like some people outside act like and the personal attacks some are making are just plain nasty - some people on that WP:ANI page are breaking WP:NPA by calling me names, or saying I had no constructive edits when it's a fact that that isn't true, it's misinformation and I am just disappointed that administrators can still get away with saying that kind of stuff that's all it really seems some rules are broken or ignored as a matter of course, it'd be nice if you updated the pages if they are no longer being followed or there was the same kind of enforcement applied to administrators who break the rules as other users who polices the police etc
I am willing to learn if you will let me, honestly, maybe take into account that no one complained about any edit I made when I was trying to show good faith with the other account til someone recognised my name though? I think I said before on this page I'm sorry about that I didn't realise the rule was so strong I was just trying to show I meant good. I dunno what else to say really, it would be nice if someone could tell me what especially I should read if following some of the rules is frowned on --Mistress Selina Kyle 02:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
There's a lot of politics and bureaucracy in Wikipedia, but in general they're not that difficult to avoid, and if you can manage to avoid them, participating in Wikipedia may go a lot more smoothly. My advice would be as follows: stay away from all of the admin noticeboards, stay away from xFD processes unless you're directly involved in them and try to represent your views as clearly and objectively as possible. If you construct your arguments well before posting them, you don't need to follow them up or spend effort trying to convince others that your side is best - the merits of what you say will stand for themselves. It's when people get bogged down in argument and pointless debate (eg. between two sides that both refuse to budge) that they start rubbing people the wrong way and crossing etiquette lines. Don't worry about what other people are doing, saying, getting away with or getting unfairly blamed for. It's an area of Wikipedia that is completely optional and completely avoidable.
As for 'letting you', remember that I'm just one voice in this discussion. Your responses here to me might help others make their decisions too, but ultimately it's the community, not any one person that will decide here if you're going to be unblocked. If you want to learn which policies to read up on again, it might be useful to skim WP:ANI and look for any WP:-prefixed links and just read those. The core WP:5P would probably also be useful.
There's one thing I think would help your case if you can address it directly. What specifically do you think you did wrong five years ago that contributed to your ban? If you can identify specifically what the problem was and commit to remembering it and avoiding it in future, people may have more faith that you know enough not to repeat those mistakes. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
When I said letting you I meant you as a group, as acting for Wikipedia, I think administrators that either don't bother to read even the talk page about a case before making false statements, or deliberately making false statements knowingly to misinform or troll should be considered misconduct as with any other user I don't like how the admins saying to ban me are seemingly doin it based on opiniosn rather than whether I did good - and want to do good - actual edits that improve the encyclopaedia than all the arguing and shouting and warring that seems to distract from it... I think this is drives a lot of female editors away as I said above ( Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#The_.22average_Wikipedian.22 ) it certainly made me say "screw it" back then, but I'm trying to give it another go and be good this time without having to hide who I am (I thought this is better than comign back as a different name that you would have never known who I am after so many years, but some people still want to ban me seems a bit well, mean), that's all I want to do honestly I've said a bunch of times on this page already now that I got into arguments too much already and that I was sorry but I was still very young back then and it has been a long time, to make judgements against someone for how they were in school seems a bit unfair is what I meant! :) I just want to edit without lying/hiding like everyone else seems to and gets away with it --Mistress Selina Kyle 16:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Selina, your first problem is using more that two sentences in your posts, which causes many admins here to stumble. --PumknPi (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mistress_Selina_Kyle&oldid=474232421"
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export