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) |
Beware! This user's talk page is patrolled by
talk page prowlers.
[1] Some of them even talk back. |
This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
( 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 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. |
This user identifies as a lipstick lesbian. |
This user is a bi female. |
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 [10] [11]
-- Mistress Selina Kyle ( talk) 08:32, 28 January 2012 (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).
ε
γκυκλοπ
αίδεια
*
22:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
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?
ε
γκυκλοπ
αίδεια
*
22:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
^χα.αχ^ --
Mistress Selina Kyle (
Α⇔Ω ¦
⇒✉)
22:24, 31 December 2005 (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)}}
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)
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
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)
Mistress Selina Kyle ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Mistress Selina Kyle ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
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. (Independent view from Kim Bruning) 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)
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 :) Ϣere SpielChequers 23:42, 29 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)
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)
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)
After reviewing the long discussion at WP:ANI, you have been unblocked persuant to the following conditions:
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. -- Jayron 32 04:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
What TechnoSymbiosis said plus:
This will be interesting. I sincerely wish you good luck. Make good use of it! :-) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 02:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
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 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 ( [17] (that one was actually stopping the donation link working for the site-wide appeal!) [18] [19]("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! [20] [21]! - 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)
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)
Google "Ghostery for Chrome".
Rich
Farmbrough,
00:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC).
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)
In regard to [23] ... surely you realize Ents are very old? Nobody Ent 03:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey there! Thanks for the tea and cookies. Riverstepstonegirl ( talk) 07:53, 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, Giant Snowman 18:51, 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)
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)
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)
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)
Yes, what Tarc said. But just stay away from AN/I for awhile. BB is baiting you and you're falling for it like a 6 year old. There's better things to do. How about'em articles? VolunteerMarek 00:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Why was I blocked, I was being repeatedly harassed and attempted to do the correct thing according to every rule that Wikipedia has, and report it... -- Mistress Selina Kyle ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 00:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Your unblock was under a very clear "one strike and you're out" rule. Instead of being very careful not to disrupt the project, you've spent most of this evening doing exactly that. Your edits on ANI today have ranged from unhelpful, to inflammatory, and the latest show a clear failure to stop beating the dead horse. You were expected to be on your very best behaviour, and the community gave you a chance expecting that you would, but today has been a far sight short of that. Courcelles 00:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Just topic ban her from AN/I that's enough. Or at the very least have the decency to block the guy who initiated the whole sorry mess and whose sole purpose to Wikipedia these past couple of years has been to troll AN/I and fuel drama - Baseball Bugs. This is pathetic. VolunteerMarek 00:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, tone of voice doesn't translate well in text. Simple misunderstandings balloon into pure drama-fests that only end with an indefinite block. It doesn't matter if you are the one who doesn't understand, or are the one being misunderstood. Some people just always find themselves at the ass-end of it, like you just did. Although it may be a while before you get unblocked again, I would support it on the condition that you avoid initiating any discussion on ANI or similar venues, and only engage in such venues when you are specifically brought up. If you think someone has insulted you, just let it slide. Editing, and life in general, are a lot less stressful that way. Someguy1221 ( talk) 01:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah you are right I should have just shut up I am really really sorry I was just trying to follow the rules it's been a long time and I was trying to do the right things
I am reading WP:ANI#Baseball_bugs_block_review and it sounds like some people are saying that they want to unban me but saying Overturn it looks like it's got a bit confused whether it's about overturning one block or both now from some people -- Mistress Selina Kyle ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 01:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Mistress Selina Kyle ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
(mainly the above stuff too big to fit in box) I promise if am unblocked, please, I will just not talk to anyone until someone talks to me and tells me what is going on and what I am meant to do in a situation like this when someone attacks me, I thought the right thing to do it is report it — I am really really sorry I don't know what I was meant to do I followed what the rules say you should do ... I was just reading what newyorkbrad posted and bleh maybe there needs to be like a contact admins to report abusive behaviour thing instead of just a board? I don't know I just want to get on with the stuff I was doing on the tea articles really before the attacks started... please? I promise
Decline reason:
I'm declining for three primary reasons:
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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I'm not seeing the basis for this indefinite block very clearly, and I would like to consider reducing this to a 24 hour block. Does anyone object to that? Everyking ( talk) 02:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Here's the thing. When you were unblocked it was pretty obvious that some people didn't like it. And it was pretty obvious that they were going to try and get you reblocked. And so they did, shame on them and all that. But you walked right into it. At this point, the ball's in your court. Yes, yes, yes, OTHERS behaved badly (those OTHERS are always behaving badly). But pointing that out is not gonna get you anywhere. What is needed now is for you to state clearly and explicitly that you are going do your best to avoid drama - this means AN/I, AE, the talk pages of people (like Raul) that there's "beef" with, or related discussion pages, and Jimbo's page - and simply focus, at least for awhile on article creation and article editing. Just forget about all the injustices of Wikipedia (which are real enough) and do some salt-of-the-earth article work. If you're serious about this then think about how articles that you care about (Feminism, Lipstick Lesbians, whatever) can be made better. Forget about the drama. Edit some articles - and then in six months or so when stuff like this arises again you will be able to show that you actually contributed needed work to encyclopedia while someone like Baseball Bugs just continued to hang out at AN/I without making an iota of an effor to actually improve the encyclopedia. Otherwise, you're basically just a different version of him. VolunteerMarek 04:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
~~~ has given you a cup of tea, for taking the time to weather a dispute. Thanks for staying calm and civil! Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.
Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!
Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{ subst:wikitea2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Miss Kyle, I just put a 48 hour lock on this page. You really aren't helping yourself, and I think if I let you continue your chances of getting unblocked would drop from nil to nothing. We keep asking you to let things go, to let things cool down, but you keep blaming other people, and asking that you be treated equally to Bugs. But Wikipedia isn't fair. When you post these protests, all most editors see is the blocked party refusing to own up to her part in escalating the drama. Blocking you was a pragmatic decision, rather than a person one. In other words, you were blocked because of the drama you unnecessarily caused, not because of your intentions. So please drink that tea you keep offering people, and wait out the page protection. Someguy1221 ( talk) 05:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I have decided to unblock this editor, as I believe the block that was put in place was completely outrageous. The reasons for my view on this matter are as follows:
Now, I rarely use my admin tools, as I prefer to spend my time contributing to articles and helping out on a WikiProject instead of faffing around with the political manoeuvring behind the scenes. However, in this case I felt compelled to intervene. What particularly raised my ire were comments in the discussions aeound this scenario that the hostile manner used is how Wikipedia operates these days, that 'Wikipedia is not fair', and that this editor should get used to it. No. When I started my emergency medicine attachment last year, the A&E consultant (ER attending) said that, as I was new to the department, I should flag up anything that seemed stupid in how it operated, as people who worked there before may have got used to these things and don't realise how pointless they are, whilst a fresh pair of eyes might. I believe this sentiment applies here - we have an editor who has returned from a long enforced absence who has clearly noticed how things have changed, and we should be treating this as a wake-up call rather than trying to shout her down. From another angle, to paraphrase another editor involved in these discussions, it would be great if people could stop wasting electrons on these pointless and disruptive debates and get on with improving the encyclopaedia. There are far too many areas of the project now which are inhabited by particular editors running their own little kingdoms, gaming the system and going against the whole spirit of the project, which aims for a community spirit - all we seem to have these days is hostility, territorial behaviour and personal attacks. Is there any wonder that we're losing editors? If people could stop wasting time behind the scenes and actually write some articles for a change, we might well get somewhere. On another note, I beg of you MSK, stay away from these pages - if you've an issue to raise, I suggest you go via the mentor you were assigned, or me, or someone similar to avoid this kind of drama in the first place. SalopianJames ( talk) 10:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Mistress Selina Kyle ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
See above.
Accept reason:
Unblocked per above. SalopianJames ( talk) 10:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I support the unblock as well. Everyking ( talk) 12:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Support unblock, and support staying away from the dramahz boardz for the time being. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
It needs to be said again: stay away from drama boards and drama pages (for example, Jimbo's talk page) and focus on articles (or templates, as you may prefer). If you think someone's picking on you or trying to bait you again, let me know. It can be handled with much less drama. VolunteerMarek 17:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Thankyouthankyouthankyou, sorry, I will definitely just stay away from those pages and try reign my idealism to change things in a bit sorry and try talk to someone else about stuf that breaks the rules (with what newyorkbrad brought up I really think there should be a decentralised way to report people breaking the rules like a report button), I really don't know what to say, thank you for the kindness - it seemed like no one was going to do anything, thank you lots and sorry again. - Mistress Selina Kyle ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 18:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:ANI:
I don't understand how those two can say I have not been making constructive edits when I have been constantly helping people and improving things since I was unbanned in the first place
all you got to do is go in my contributions and see me helping newbies loads with articles and corrected a bnch of stuff since I came back (like I was told to stay clear of big changes for now I did)
I helped a tonne of newbies, been fighting vandalism, suggesting ideas in template talks and things, improving templates and improving the wikilove templates (I was actually had a few tabs open with some improvements I needed to fiddle more with in preview open when I got blocked, I ended up just copying them to notepad bleh). I did LOADS of things to help I don't see how they can say I did nothing it seems like some people don't even read through before saying things
I was just trying to stick to the rules which is what i was told to do as condition of my unban [ honestly though there never even a real community ban just a couple of people decided they would and no one challenged it that's probably why it was broken when I came back, it was just a normal block I never actually did a single unblock request I had just got fed up and left])
Since I was unblocked I stayed totally away from the boards just to make sure since reporting attacks caused more attacks, like everyone recommended me to :/ I've been doing nothing but trying to help Wikipedia the actual encyclopaedia get better while avoiding that place altogether -- Mistress Selina Kyle ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 15:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh I thought I should mention as well as all my good edits I was before accused of "giving exceptions" due to "loyalty" by someone who later went on to become the Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation! And I almost helped found Wikimedia UK around 2005 [34] before I got too busy — in 2006 I alerted Jimbo that his site-wide donate button, which had been up for a few hours at that point, didn't actually... work when I pressed it ( ) [35]
-- Mistress Selina Kyle ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 16:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
A healthy way to start each day ;-) Alarbus ( talk) 11:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks I think I should put my head in a bucket of water too lol -.- -- Mistress Selina Kyle ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 18:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Alarbus has passed you the Wiki Joint! WikiJoints promote... uh... promote... help with... do... wiki... something... yeah... uh, what was I saying? WikiJoints help promote, uh, wiki stuff...and help with...huh?
Stay editing my friend. The most interesting man in the world ( talk) 02:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
People said I shouldn't post on WP:ANI after the comments I got before I hope someone sees this the sockpuppet from before (" Cataconia") is back on a new account I just saw him back on the Child sexual abuse talk page...: Special:Contributions/MichelleBlondeau -- Mistress Selina Kyle ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 14:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
There is of course no way to place a reference on a categorization, but you can refer to http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.htm. 24.22.217.162 ( talk) 18:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Selina, the barnstar you gave me here is much appreciated. Thank you! Binksternet ( talk) 03:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, just a courtesy note to inform you that I am mentioning you by username in the Discussion report including in the next issue of The Signpost. You can see the draft text here. Please leave any feedback on the talk page there. -- Surturz ( talk) 06:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi there,
Just wanted to thank you for the thoughtful and interesting note on my talk page.
All the best, -- Jaobar ( talk) 17:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I sincerely hope you aren't mentioned on ANI again until you actually do something worth mentioning, instead of the current fad of "hay guys let's chat about selina!" Godspeed. -- Golbez ( talk) 20:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Just so it is clarified for any future incident. Some editors claimed that MSK is under some special restrictions, imposed at the first unblock, that she subsequently violated. Now, I reread User_talk:Mistress_Selina_Kyle#Unblocked_1 several tiems and I see no indications of such a restriction. So, can anybody point to me what special restrictions MSK is under? If not, it would mean she is under no special restrictions, and her situation is the same as of 99% of editors in this project. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 23:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, I sincerely hope that this drama has been a wake-up call to you. We weren't kidding when we told you you'd be walking on eggshells for the foreseeable future, or that your contributions would be meticulously disassembled and scrutinised for the slightest misdeed. There was significant support for your unblocking, but don't in any way take that as a vindication of your involvement in the events that led to your block. Courcelles' block was technically correct, and I think you should consider yourself fortunate that there are still editors and admins here that are willing to look at the broader circumstances surrounding what happened and afford you some degree of leeway. You're probably not going to get that kind of good faith from people again in the near future.
The following is my personal perspective and you're free to take that as you see fit, but I think it would benefit you greatly if you are receptive to these comments.
That about sums up what I can think of right now. I think you're on the right path for now, so just keep your head down and build up a body of good work, particularly stuff in article space if possible. Have a read of WP:BRD and take it to heart, it will diffuse most problems that arise in article space and if you follow it well, that will count in your favour in the event that the other editors involved misbehave.
Tread carefully, Selina, and I wish you good luck moving forward. And always remember: when in doubt, ask questions. The wise man knows only that he knows nothing. Presumably this applies to wise women as well (*ducks, runs*) TechnoSymbiosis ( talk) 23:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
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) |
Beware! This user's talk page is patrolled by
talk page prowlers.
[1] Some of them even talk back. |
This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
( 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 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. |
This user identifies as a lipstick lesbian. |
This user is a bi female. |
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 [10] [11]
-- Mistress Selina Kyle ( talk) 08:32, 28 January 2012 (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).
ε
γκυκλοπ
αίδεια
*
22:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
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?
ε
γκυκλοπ
αίδεια
*
22:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
^χα.αχ^ --
Mistress Selina Kyle (
Α⇔Ω ¦
⇒✉)
22:24, 31 December 2005 (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)}}
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)
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
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)
Mistress Selina Kyle ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Mistress Selina Kyle ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
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. (Independent view from Kim Bruning) 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)
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 :) Ϣere SpielChequers 23:42, 29 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)
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)
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)
After reviewing the long discussion at WP:ANI, you have been unblocked persuant to the following conditions:
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. -- Jayron 32 04:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
What TechnoSymbiosis said plus:
This will be interesting. I sincerely wish you good luck. Make good use of it! :-) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 02:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
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 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 ( [17] (that one was actually stopping the donation link working for the site-wide appeal!) [18] [19]("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! [20] [21]! - 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)
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)
Google "Ghostery for Chrome".
Rich
Farmbrough,
00:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC).
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)
In regard to [23] ... surely you realize Ents are very old? Nobody Ent 03:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey there! Thanks for the tea and cookies. Riverstepstonegirl ( talk) 07:53, 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, Giant Snowman 18:51, 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)
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)
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)
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)
Yes, what Tarc said. But just stay away from AN/I for awhile. BB is baiting you and you're falling for it like a 6 year old. There's better things to do. How about'em articles? VolunteerMarek 00:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Why was I blocked, I was being repeatedly harassed and attempted to do the correct thing according to every rule that Wikipedia has, and report it... -- Mistress Selina Kyle ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 00:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Your unblock was under a very clear "one strike and you're out" rule. Instead of being very careful not to disrupt the project, you've spent most of this evening doing exactly that. Your edits on ANI today have ranged from unhelpful, to inflammatory, and the latest show a clear failure to stop beating the dead horse. You were expected to be on your very best behaviour, and the community gave you a chance expecting that you would, but today has been a far sight short of that. Courcelles 00:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Just topic ban her from AN/I that's enough. Or at the very least have the decency to block the guy who initiated the whole sorry mess and whose sole purpose to Wikipedia these past couple of years has been to troll AN/I and fuel drama - Baseball Bugs. This is pathetic. VolunteerMarek 00:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, tone of voice doesn't translate well in text. Simple misunderstandings balloon into pure drama-fests that only end with an indefinite block. It doesn't matter if you are the one who doesn't understand, or are the one being misunderstood. Some people just always find themselves at the ass-end of it, like you just did. Although it may be a while before you get unblocked again, I would support it on the condition that you avoid initiating any discussion on ANI or similar venues, and only engage in such venues when you are specifically brought up. If you think someone has insulted you, just let it slide. Editing, and life in general, are a lot less stressful that way. Someguy1221 ( talk) 01:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah you are right I should have just shut up I am really really sorry I was just trying to follow the rules it's been a long time and I was trying to do the right things
I am reading WP:ANI#Baseball_bugs_block_review and it sounds like some people are saying that they want to unban me but saying Overturn it looks like it's got a bit confused whether it's about overturning one block or both now from some people -- Mistress Selina Kyle ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 01:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Mistress Selina Kyle ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
(mainly the above stuff too big to fit in box) I promise if am unblocked, please, I will just not talk to anyone until someone talks to me and tells me what is going on and what I am meant to do in a situation like this when someone attacks me, I thought the right thing to do it is report it — I am really really sorry I don't know what I was meant to do I followed what the rules say you should do ... I was just reading what newyorkbrad posted and bleh maybe there needs to be like a contact admins to report abusive behaviour thing instead of just a board? I don't know I just want to get on with the stuff I was doing on the tea articles really before the attacks started... please? I promise
Decline reason:
I'm declining for three primary reasons:
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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I'm not seeing the basis for this indefinite block very clearly, and I would like to consider reducing this to a 24 hour block. Does anyone object to that? Everyking ( talk) 02:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Here's the thing. When you were unblocked it was pretty obvious that some people didn't like it. And it was pretty obvious that they were going to try and get you reblocked. And so they did, shame on them and all that. But you walked right into it. At this point, the ball's in your court. Yes, yes, yes, OTHERS behaved badly (those OTHERS are always behaving badly). But pointing that out is not gonna get you anywhere. What is needed now is for you to state clearly and explicitly that you are going do your best to avoid drama - this means AN/I, AE, the talk pages of people (like Raul) that there's "beef" with, or related discussion pages, and Jimbo's page - and simply focus, at least for awhile on article creation and article editing. Just forget about all the injustices of Wikipedia (which are real enough) and do some salt-of-the-earth article work. If you're serious about this then think about how articles that you care about (Feminism, Lipstick Lesbians, whatever) can be made better. Forget about the drama. Edit some articles - and then in six months or so when stuff like this arises again you will be able to show that you actually contributed needed work to encyclopedia while someone like Baseball Bugs just continued to hang out at AN/I without making an iota of an effor to actually improve the encyclopedia. Otherwise, you're basically just a different version of him. VolunteerMarek 04:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
~~~ has given you a cup of tea, for taking the time to weather a dispute. Thanks for staying calm and civil! Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.
Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!
Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{ subst:wikitea2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Miss Kyle, I just put a 48 hour lock on this page. You really aren't helping yourself, and I think if I let you continue your chances of getting unblocked would drop from nil to nothing. We keep asking you to let things go, to let things cool down, but you keep blaming other people, and asking that you be treated equally to Bugs. But Wikipedia isn't fair. When you post these protests, all most editors see is the blocked party refusing to own up to her part in escalating the drama. Blocking you was a pragmatic decision, rather than a person one. In other words, you were blocked because of the drama you unnecessarily caused, not because of your intentions. So please drink that tea you keep offering people, and wait out the page protection. Someguy1221 ( talk) 05:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I have decided to unblock this editor, as I believe the block that was put in place was completely outrageous. The reasons for my view on this matter are as follows:
Now, I rarely use my admin tools, as I prefer to spend my time contributing to articles and helping out on a WikiProject instead of faffing around with the political manoeuvring behind the scenes. However, in this case I felt compelled to intervene. What particularly raised my ire were comments in the discussions aeound this scenario that the hostile manner used is how Wikipedia operates these days, that 'Wikipedia is not fair', and that this editor should get used to it. No. When I started my emergency medicine attachment last year, the A&E consultant (ER attending) said that, as I was new to the department, I should flag up anything that seemed stupid in how it operated, as people who worked there before may have got used to these things and don't realise how pointless they are, whilst a fresh pair of eyes might. I believe this sentiment applies here - we have an editor who has returned from a long enforced absence who has clearly noticed how things have changed, and we should be treating this as a wake-up call rather than trying to shout her down. From another angle, to paraphrase another editor involved in these discussions, it would be great if people could stop wasting electrons on these pointless and disruptive debates and get on with improving the encyclopaedia. There are far too many areas of the project now which are inhabited by particular editors running their own little kingdoms, gaming the system and going against the whole spirit of the project, which aims for a community spirit - all we seem to have these days is hostility, territorial behaviour and personal attacks. Is there any wonder that we're losing editors? If people could stop wasting time behind the scenes and actually write some articles for a change, we might well get somewhere. On another note, I beg of you MSK, stay away from these pages - if you've an issue to raise, I suggest you go via the mentor you were assigned, or me, or someone similar to avoid this kind of drama in the first place. SalopianJames ( talk) 10:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Mistress Selina Kyle ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
See above.
Accept reason:
Unblocked per above. SalopianJames ( talk) 10:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I support the unblock as well. Everyking ( talk) 12:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Support unblock, and support staying away from the dramahz boardz for the time being. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
It needs to be said again: stay away from drama boards and drama pages (for example, Jimbo's talk page) and focus on articles (or templates, as you may prefer). If you think someone's picking on you or trying to bait you again, let me know. It can be handled with much less drama. VolunteerMarek 17:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Thankyouthankyouthankyou, sorry, I will definitely just stay away from those pages and try reign my idealism to change things in a bit sorry and try talk to someone else about stuf that breaks the rules (with what newyorkbrad brought up I really think there should be a decentralised way to report people breaking the rules like a report button), I really don't know what to say, thank you for the kindness - it seemed like no one was going to do anything, thank you lots and sorry again. - Mistress Selina Kyle ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 18:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:ANI:
I don't understand how those two can say I have not been making constructive edits when I have been constantly helping people and improving things since I was unbanned in the first place
all you got to do is go in my contributions and see me helping newbies loads with articles and corrected a bnch of stuff since I came back (like I was told to stay clear of big changes for now I did)
I helped a tonne of newbies, been fighting vandalism, suggesting ideas in template talks and things, improving templates and improving the wikilove templates (I was actually had a few tabs open with some improvements I needed to fiddle more with in preview open when I got blocked, I ended up just copying them to notepad bleh). I did LOADS of things to help I don't see how they can say I did nothing it seems like some people don't even read through before saying things
I was just trying to stick to the rules which is what i was told to do as condition of my unban [ honestly though there never even a real community ban just a couple of people decided they would and no one challenged it that's probably why it was broken when I came back, it was just a normal block I never actually did a single unblock request I had just got fed up and left])
Since I was unblocked I stayed totally away from the boards just to make sure since reporting attacks caused more attacks, like everyone recommended me to :/ I've been doing nothing but trying to help Wikipedia the actual encyclopaedia get better while avoiding that place altogether -- Mistress Selina Kyle ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 15:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh I thought I should mention as well as all my good edits I was before accused of "giving exceptions" due to "loyalty" by someone who later went on to become the Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation! And I almost helped found Wikimedia UK around 2005 [34] before I got too busy — in 2006 I alerted Jimbo that his site-wide donate button, which had been up for a few hours at that point, didn't actually... work when I pressed it ( ) [35]
-- Mistress Selina Kyle ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 16:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
A healthy way to start each day ;-) Alarbus ( talk) 11:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks I think I should put my head in a bucket of water too lol -.- -- Mistress Selina Kyle ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 18:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Alarbus has passed you the Wiki Joint! WikiJoints promote... uh... promote... help with... do... wiki... something... yeah... uh, what was I saying? WikiJoints help promote, uh, wiki stuff...and help with...huh?
Stay editing my friend. The most interesting man in the world ( talk) 02:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
People said I shouldn't post on WP:ANI after the comments I got before I hope someone sees this the sockpuppet from before (" Cataconia") is back on a new account I just saw him back on the Child sexual abuse talk page...: Special:Contributions/MichelleBlondeau -- Mistress Selina Kyle ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 14:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
There is of course no way to place a reference on a categorization, but you can refer to http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.htm. 24.22.217.162 ( talk) 18:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Selina, the barnstar you gave me here is much appreciated. Thank you! Binksternet ( talk) 03:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, just a courtesy note to inform you that I am mentioning you by username in the Discussion report including in the next issue of The Signpost. You can see the draft text here. Please leave any feedback on the talk page there. -- Surturz ( talk) 06:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi there,
Just wanted to thank you for the thoughtful and interesting note on my talk page.
All the best, -- Jaobar ( talk) 17:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I sincerely hope you aren't mentioned on ANI again until you actually do something worth mentioning, instead of the current fad of "hay guys let's chat about selina!" Godspeed. -- Golbez ( talk) 20:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Just so it is clarified for any future incident. Some editors claimed that MSK is under some special restrictions, imposed at the first unblock, that she subsequently violated. Now, I reread User_talk:Mistress_Selina_Kyle#Unblocked_1 several tiems and I see no indications of such a restriction. So, can anybody point to me what special restrictions MSK is under? If not, it would mean she is under no special restrictions, and her situation is the same as of 99% of editors in this project. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 23:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, I sincerely hope that this drama has been a wake-up call to you. We weren't kidding when we told you you'd be walking on eggshells for the foreseeable future, or that your contributions would be meticulously disassembled and scrutinised for the slightest misdeed. There was significant support for your unblocking, but don't in any way take that as a vindication of your involvement in the events that led to your block. Courcelles' block was technically correct, and I think you should consider yourself fortunate that there are still editors and admins here that are willing to look at the broader circumstances surrounding what happened and afford you some degree of leeway. You're probably not going to get that kind of good faith from people again in the near future.
The following is my personal perspective and you're free to take that as you see fit, but I think it would benefit you greatly if you are receptive to these comments.
That about sums up what I can think of right now. I think you're on the right path for now, so just keep your head down and build up a body of good work, particularly stuff in article space if possible. Have a read of WP:BRD and take it to heart, it will diffuse most problems that arise in article space and if you follow it well, that will count in your favour in the event that the other editors involved misbehave.
Tread carefully, Selina, and I wish you good luck moving forward. And always remember: when in doubt, ask questions. The wise man knows only that he knows nothing. Presumably this applies to wise women as well (*ducks, runs*) TechnoSymbiosis ( talk) 23:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)