User talk:Mistress Selina Kyle/Archive: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Undid revision 475478685 by Baseball Bugs (talk) - rv troll)
(Note: new section)
Line 360: Line 360:
We all know that the [[WP:NPA]], [[WP:AGF]], and assorted wiki-acronyms about civility are gamed and gamed exceedingly well in this project; it is acceptable to attack others as long as one does so charmingly and subtly. The battleground is not fair and it will never be enforced fairly, that is the reality of the "Wikipedia is an [[MMORPG]]" meme. My advice, let it go. You, I, and everyone else know what they're really upto, and if they need to comfort themselves with carrying on the spirit of the long-dead [[WP:BADSITES]], then allow them to live in their own delusion. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 23:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
We all know that the [[WP:NPA]], [[WP:AGF]], and assorted wiki-acronyms about civility are gamed and gamed exceedingly well in this project; it is acceptable to attack others as long as one does so charmingly and subtly. The battleground is not fair and it will never be enforced fairly, that is the reality of the "Wikipedia is an [[MMORPG]]" meme. My advice, let it go. You, I, and everyone else know what they're really upto, and if they need to comfort themselves with carrying on the spirit of the long-dead [[WP:BADSITES]], then allow them to live in their own delusion. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 23:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
== Note ==
You just called me a troll. That is a personal attack. Stop it. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 23:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:31, 6 February 2012


( 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 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:


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:

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)

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)

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)

Unblock request

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
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 logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribscreation logchange block settingsunblockfilter log)

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, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
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 logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribscreation logchange block settingsunblockfilter log)

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, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

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)

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)

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)

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)
In the context of "I was still very young back then" I'm curious as to how old you are now, if you're comfortable stating the answer. No prejudice on my part if you choose not to answer. Nobody Ent 19:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
You were one of the ones who supported blocking me I'm a little suspicious as to why you are asking me that?
even then I was smart enough to know better than to give out detailed personal info voluntarily (my guess is you already trawled through the history of my page trying to find if I had ever mentioned it? :p) and now these days after having more than a few fans who just got too creepy and "fans" I know better than to put anything that can be used to stalk me anywhere on the internet now.
why do you want to know, have you read the stuff I've posted on this page? I did try to explain that I wasn't meaning to "sockpuppet" and I don't think the Special:Contributions/Mss._Selina_Kyle was really at least in spirit if you think I broke it technically, -I was just trying to show that I wanted to edit constructively without hiding was like everyone else banned seems to, i was just trying to be honest and show good will :( --Mistress Selina Kyle 23:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I found TechSymbiosis's arguments at ANI somewhat persuasive and am considering changing my recommendation at ANI.
  • You mentioned the five years and being very young back then. In the context of age, relative change is more relevant than absolute -- the difference between a 15 and 20 year is more significant than 30 and 35, hence my query. That said, I agree entirely with you're reasoning in not answering. Nobody Ent 00:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh lol, I didn't even think of that I thought you'd guess from my interests back then I was not old ha. Yeah it was more like that, I can't give any years though sorry --Mistress Selina Kyle 01:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


After reviewing the long discussion at WP:ANI, you have been unblocked persuant to the following conditions:

  1. You are restricted to a single account.
  2. You are reminded of WP:ROPE and strongly advised to be aware you are under extreme scrutiny
  3. User:Volunteer Marek is assigned as your mentor. Please take their advice, and converse with them over how to handle controversial, stressful, or otherwise problematic situations before they become out-of-hand.
  4. Persuant to the conditions above, if problems arise regarding any violation of Wikipedia policies or behavioral guidelines, a reblock shall be swift and unforgiving. This is a last chance, not a free lisence to return to old problems. I will be monitoring the situation, and if I become aware of problems, I will reinstate the block.

If these conditions are too onerous, I can reinstate the block, but this should give you the ability to work your way back into the good graces of the Wikipedia community; just be aware that your history does not disappear, and this is not a carte-blanche. You have a reputation to overcome; please make those who opposed your unblock wrong and be a model citizen from now on. Vaya con dios. --Jayron32 04:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm very glad you got unblocked since I think you very much deserve it. BUT, I do think that if you're not careful you might get reblocked again. For one thing, a) Wikipedia is a different place then it was back in 2006. But also, b) I'm sure there'll be lots of people watching your every step waiting for you to give'em an excuse to say "see, I said it was a bad idea". And some of the bad faithed b)'s (people out to get you) are likely to use the a) (your unfamiliarity with Wikipedia as it is) as a means towards a reblock. At the same time I'd hate to see you fuck shit up for no reason (we got people on WR we can use for that sort of thing instead (joke! people, chill)), especially since I put myself on a line, at least a little bit here. So I'm here to MENTOR your ass. That's how this unblock thing works I think. As a mentor, as far as I understand it, my responsibility is to navigate between giving you advice which will stave off the b)'s (bad faithed people out to get you) from baiting you into another block and at the same time keep you from giving them legitimate reasons for such an unblock. A good place to start would be to discuss what exactly it is that you want to do on Wikipedia, now that you're unblocked. Waste time, fuck around, see how the place has changed - all that. But it's probably a good idea to have some kind of explicit, specific, non-trouble-making purpose (even if eventually - and I mean, eventually - you depart from it) in mind as a sort of "stability I won't-give'em-a-reason-to-block-me-again" kind of anchor. So I'll email you and let's talk about it. VolunteerMarek 05:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks I'll try be more thoughtful about what I say :) You can discuss here it'd be better really as maybe people can give useful comment, I have nothing to hide :) --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 06:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Selina, I'll re-iterate some advice I gave above: 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. Don't get involved in fights, even if you're right - defer to others and walk away. And as tempting as it seems to be for you, I'd really strongly advise staying far away from (making) broad negative assessments of Wikipedia's editing environment as it relates to gender balance, perceived corruption/favouritism or anything else like that. While it's your right to engage in these things, I can tell you in no uncertain terms that because of your past and WR affiliation, doing so will be used against you. Stay out of the politics completely for a few months and show you're here for the main purpose of the project - building an encyclopedia. A lot of people have put their faith in you here, don't let us down. Good luck. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I know the people that supported me took a big risk that they would have a black mark put on them in the eyes of some people and I really do appreciate that, I want to try move on and show that they were wrong about me - thanks :) --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 06:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

What TechnoSymbiosis said plus:

  • Wikipedia is inconsistent and incoherent. The ideal of a "community" is false -- there are actually multiple overlapping communities.
  • Sooner or later, intelligent editors with different viewpoints, despite working for the common good of Wikipedia, are going to run into conflict. When this happens, you're going to be at a disadvantage in the WP:DR process because of your history, some poorly turned phrases during the unblock, and that other website. If you do exactly the same borderline thing a more anonymous editor does, you're going to get a stronger reaction. I strongly recommend let this go (see WP:NOJUSTICE) and behave scrupulously correct.
  • The best reply to spurious accusations is no response at all. If an accusation is total nonsense, ignore the accuser; wait to see if neutral editors start asking you questions and only reply to those. If a question can be possibly be good faith, answer it shortly and directly and impersonally.
  • If stuff starts happening you're welcome to drop me a note on my talk page. (No promises, I go off-wiki from time to time.) If you're starting to pooch things up, I'll tell you straight; likewise if you're cool I tell you that, too. Nobody Ent 23:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This will be interesting. I sincerely wish you good luck. Make good use of it! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

As do I. Please don't let those of us down who supported your unblocking by fucking it up. Malleus Fatuorum 03:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

slippery slope

Not a good idea. I'd classify Jimbo's talk page as equivalent to the admin noticeboards it was suggested you stay away from, and promoting Wikipedia Review isn't a good idea either. To be explicit: there was absolutely no violation of any policies I'm aware of in your post -- what I'm saying is that not all that is allowed is wise. Nobody Ent 14:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to second that... You were unblocked so you could contribute needed fixes to Wikipedia articles, not instantly start stirring up shit and starting a smear campaign regarding Wikimedia's leadership. It would be best if you confined your opinions to yourself and instead worked to make the content of Wikipedia articles better. Pick something unlikely to generate conflict, and spend some time making it better. WP:BATTLEGROUND is as good of a reason as any to be blocked again. --Jayron32 18:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I remember someone saying something like that yeah, but it wasn't a condition of unbanning or anything, I thought what I am supposed to be doing is behaving well and not getting into arguments (like you said with the wp battleground link) etc? Looking at the contents of that link I don't think it's really appropriate to be using it here and I did not swear or accuse anyone of anything, lke you just did me?

I am allowed to disagree with people I thought but civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation as that page says, rather than insult, harass, or intimidate - which you must admit when you accuse me of "stirring up shit and starting a smear campaign" would come under all three of those? Please assume good faith? I thought I was very polite, you can criticise without attacking :)

I've always supported Jimmy as per the links I've mentioned before ([16] (that one was actually stopping the donation link working for the site-wide appeal!) [17][18]("erotic" was POV and put in there by people trying to say Jimmy made porn when he actually did not, there is a big difference between nude modelling/glamour modelling]] and [[porn - in fact, in that discussion, if you look, Eloquence who these days is known as Deputy Head of the Wikimedia Foundation, accused me of being too loyal to Jimbo! when I was trying to keep NPOV)), hell almost helped found Wikimedia UK around 2005 before I got banned then got busy with life![19][20]! - I disagree about how some things are done, but I certainly don't want any kind of war with him, Wikipedia Review was set up to try provide an additional check and balance on Wikipedia in the same way as OpenCongress. :)

I only said about the deletion of material on Wikipedia that is then being moved to Wikia because it is not in Wikipedia's best interests for that flow of content to be continuing, and I thought it was important that someone said to him. If he wanted to tell me to shut up, I'd happily do it, but he's a big boy and I really don't think he would want people swearing at others and making accusations in bad faith in his name! Respectfully ( ! :) ), Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 20:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The information is still there, though, ready to be pulled back when/if we get less deletionist. And Wikipedia's best interest is not the same as a standard web site - i.e. page impressions and click-throughs, it's in making information available. Better for that interest that the information is available on Wikia than nowhere. Rich Farmbrough, 00:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC).

browser glitch

This edit doesn't appear to be browser interoperable -- your talk page looks fine in IE / Firefox / Safari and like crap in Chrome. I did my page using a table -- but I'll admit it was a PITA. Nobody Ent 14:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh thanks :) I don't use Chrome I don't trust how Google deliberately make it so you can't turn prompt before allowing cookies on, like Firefox can (or even IE) or block scripts fully (probably because it's not in their interest for people to be able to bypass Google Analytics which is a system of tracking web beacon-like scripts on many third-party websites similar to Facebook's 'Like' script tracking pages you look at — probably don't want to encourage people blocking AdWords either):
it seems like a type of vendor lockin that they are trying to do basically, a lot of Google is a bit seedy given so much of their business is in advertising and trading information about their users like Facebook --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 21:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
We're the product, not the customer [21]. Nobody Ent 23:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
You may be ;) --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 23:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Google "Ghostery for Chrome". Rich Farmbrough, 00:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC).

[citation needed] :) Ghostery's own download page openly says: "As Chrome's resource blocking API is not yet comprehensive, some elements may execute."!
Use Firefox + NoScript :) (+ turn prompt cookies on in Firefox ++ use BetterPrivacy for dealing with flash cookies;) ++ AdBlock to block specific things on sites that you otherwise trust ++ FlashBlock for when you trust a site generally but you want the option to choose before Flash loads (like if someone posts a lot of youtube videos you can load one by one instead of it lagging by loading all) - I actually made a thread about this stuff earlier I do occasionally know what I'm talking about, lol. ;) And I know someone will think it's paranoia, but I wrote about Facebook's creepiness too (or well, there are some nice pages too that can be inserted in other pages that will really make your computer screwed) :) --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 02:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
If you are really into this stuff you might be interested in a rumour that well known FB games do not properly escape person-person whispers and can be used to execute arbitrary code. You will doubtless be already aware of the EFF's browser fingerprint demo. Rich Farmbrough, 21:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC).

Ellen Ripley

Nice job spotting that, I thought at first it was a vandal edit then checked and you were right someone missed a little bracket ha. :) Why don't you have a userpage any reason, just wondering? :) --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 22:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to you! Well, I haven't made userpage because I don't think many people want to know everything about my life (what a mistake, because I'm a kind of amazing!;)). Anyway, thank you very much! --Hyliad (d), 00:03 (CEST)
Well if you're fem check out Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#The_.22average_Wikipedian.22 and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias (someone will probably shout at me for this but I think it's important) :) --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)

Template talk

In regard to [22] ... surely you realize Ents are very old? Nobody Ent 03:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The world needs some damn ents! --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 02:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey there

Hey there! Thanks for the tea and cookies. Riverstepstonegirl (talk) 07:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

np evil willow rules Smile.gif --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 08:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Ditto - thanks very much! Not entirely sure what I did to deserve it, but thanks anyway! :-) SalopianJames (talk) 09:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Mistress Selina Kyle, that was really nice. :) Here's something for you. Acalamari 10:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

A kitteh for you!

Kitten (06) by Ron.jpg 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)


Hi - please do not refactor or change other's comments, especially citing "personal attacks" to justify the edit, while engaging in one yourself. Regards, GiantSnowman 18:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed the personal attacks per the WP:RPA policy - I did not make any personal attacks, I literally said that administrators were acting unprofessionally... --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 18:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
[ec] Yes, and now that you've been reverted a few times, perhaps you'll stop. Consensus is that those remarks you RPAed are not to be RPAed. Thank you. (Please consider this a final warning.) Drmies (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Where were you personally attacked? And one could argue, if one wanted to go down such a route, that describing someone as "unprofessional" is itself a personal attack... GiantSnowman 18:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Look at the diff... The administrators were acting like trolls attacking me as I am on the site, yes, quote:
  • "LOL .. grow up"
  • "blah blah blah"
  • "Weekly Reader"
  • "trolls and malcontents"
  • "troll child"
  • "Weekly Reader; we knew them hornblowers"
  • "It's comprised of people who were banned from here and mainly exists to provide them a rant forum where they can nurse grudges. If that's what people choose to focus their daily life on then that's kind of sad"
  • "Bitchipedia Review"
... I cannot see how you are defending this and then using your administrator privileges to threaten me against removing the personal attacks per Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks... you are acting like bullies... --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 19:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
It may be better, Selina, for you to rise above these sort of arguments. I'm genuinely pleased that you've been unblocked; it is a sign of the maturity of Wikipedia that it can offer another chance to those who have been blocked in the past. Nevertheless, your return to editing here will not receive universal approval, and I'd recommend to you, in a genuine spirit of collegiality, that you don't respond to those who taunt you. You will not make yourself popular by speaking Truth to Power, but I suspect that is not a consideration for you. It will take time for folks to come to terms with you, but I think from what you've written recently that you are able to maintain your composure and not engage in confrontation - even if you feel slighted by others. Nevertheless, in the long run, you prove that you are reasonable and mature, while those who would sling mud define themselves by those actions. I wish you all the best in your desire to edit Wikipedia once more, and sincerely hope that it turns out well for you. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with this. Ignore it, rise above it, don't respond, and eventually people will start to take notice that you're focusing on content while other editors are focusing on you. Noformation Talk 19:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Just leave those comments alone. Who cares? These aren't admins, they're mostly - with one or two exceptions - folks who hang out at AN/I, stir up drama, stroke their own egos and contribute absolutely nothing to Wikipedia in numerous other ways. Yes, these are personal attacks and bouts of incivility. But let the kids have their fun/two minutes of hate. This one's not worth your time.VolunteerMarek 19:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Marek, I disagree--mostly. I'll give you incivility for some of them, but not personal attacks. Mistress, there clearly is not a consensus for your RPA edits, and I agree with Marek that this isn't worth your time. All the best, Drmies (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
If you have good intentions then I'm sorry it just seems a bit like you it's a kind of gang up on me thing just because some people hate WR...
Please consider that letting the hostile attitude by so many people in Wikipedia's official pages is why so many female users leave... Most just don't want to put up with it when they see how immature the culture is... There should be zero tolerance for this stuff in Wikipedia's "parliament"... --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 19:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Speaking as a friendly user to you here, Mistress, I would strongly advise not editing the comments of least for now anyway...even to remove personal attacks like any you've listed. I would hate to see you blocked over something like this (though I can assure you it would not be me, ever, who would issue such a block; plus, I have no doubt that you are acting in good faith here), so I do recommend leaving these comments and others alone: however, if you do feel you are being attacked, don't hesitate to turn to an editor you trust for help in the matter. I also highly recommend keeping away from ANI and just stick to articles: you'll find it better for you in every way. Finally, I certainly don't condone anything you found offensive...I just want to make sure nothing happens to you. VolunteerMarek's comment above me contains good advice, too. Acalamari 19:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Selina, people ARE going to gang up on you. For one thing, that's basically how AN/I and other drama boards work. (Ever read the description of a "pecking party" in One Flew's Over the Cuckoo's Nest? Here) In this case, they will additionally gang up on you in particular because of who you are, what site you represent and because some of the ones who enjoy acting in such ways may perceive you as "an easy target". But keep in mind, that you *wanted* to return to editing. Basically, cultivate a thick skin (always a good idea, not just here), shrug off this nonsense, and don't give'em an excuse.VolunteerMarek 19:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

bleh but what happens if no one stands up to them? other people won't say anything, just take a look at how bad it is, just leave and that's it or just not even want to get involved... it's a horrible culture to be on Wikipedia's official pages... --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 20:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. But if nobody who prefers to avoid fighting stands up to them, they'll end up merely squabbling among themselves in an ever diminishing group. In the meantime, the rest of us can get on with writing an encyclopedia. I did a workshop in Manchester for "Girl Geeks" who wanted to edit Wikipedia recently. They didn't give a monkey's about ANI; they just wanted to edit. There's so much positive that can be done, it seems almost churlish to me to waste time on the dramah boards. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Sure, we need to stand up to incivility. But unfortunately, it matters who is doing the standing (also, this). We are not equal here, and people may get stomped because of who they are, even if they are doing nothing wrong. I'd recommend you avoid involving yourself in the dramu so shortly after an unblock. It is just not healthy, on many levels. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 20:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
You're kinda right, I've said it a few times that we need to just write more really rather than just reverting and stuff: Wikipedia_talk:Service_awards#Service_awards_by_time_and_edit_count.3F... but... the decision process really just needs to be made a lot more open and friendly, less shouting matches would be so much better if when a major discussion was going on someone just had a wikilove-like button at the top of their screen that gives colour like a new talk page message or something to give their input... make everything more inclusive not who is the shoutiest wins.. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 20:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
This is just a friendly note that should be aware of the lack of consensus on removing generally unproductive comments that aren't extremely obvious personal attacks. Prior discussions on this issue may be found at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#Removal of harmful posts and sections below that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


Wikis, blogs, and search results do not make appropriate links for article's external links sections. I've removed a few of these from the Bisexual erasure article. Please do not consider this an attack on the article's subject matter but simply an attempt to improve the article by removing significantly less reliable material. I hope you'll be able to find suitable, reliable replacements. For example, the search result that appeared to promote a book might be replaced with a book reference within the article or by a note in a "Bibliography" or "Further reading" section. Rklawton (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Chin up

Like it or not, this place sees you as the face of WR as much as the WR sees Jimbo as the face of the Wikipedia, and the face is the first one in line to receive the smacks, both deserved and undeserved. The difference between you and Jimbo though is atleast you have the cajones to enter the viper's nest in the first place (can you imagine the savaging he'd get if he ever registered at WR and posted?)

We all know that the WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and assorted wiki-acronyms about civility are gamed and gamed exceedingly well in this project; it is acceptable to attack others as long as one does so charmingly and subtly. The battleground is not fair and it will never be enforced fairly, that is the reality of the "Wikipedia is an MMORPG" meme. My advice, let it go. You, I, and everyone else know what they're really upto, and if they need to comfort themselves with carrying on the spirit of the long-dead WP:BADSITES, then allow them to live in their own delusion. Tarc (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


You just called me a troll. That is a personal attack. Stop it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)