User talk:Mistress Selina Kyle/Archive

Reason
( me = Wikipedia Review .com/?showuser=1 ) (Selina, I don't think this link works, or maybe you have to be logged in to WR to view it. I can't even create a login because it won't accept my email address. Just FYI. --Fang Aili talk 00:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC))
 * I think it's login yeah just checked... I guess we do need to redo the whole registration thing, it got tightened up a lot because of sockpuppets we blocked free accounts (I'm not sure how me making a new account here can really be called sockpuppeting when I made no attempt whatsoever to hide who I was!) from some weirdos.. free email accounts like gmail etc were really heavily abused by certain people, I think there may be a bit that says email wikipediareview@gmail.com if you want to request an account somewhere --Mistress Selina Kyle 01:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Requests_for_comment/Linuxbeak


 * Requests_for_comment/Linuxbeak

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:


 * Various edits to improve Christmas, prior to my edits did not mention Yule or Winter Solstice at all, even though most of modern traditions derive from those. Article in it's current version says this (in a seperate paragraph though, since been expanded a bit.. I was the catalyst.
 * I made the black triangle (badge) article ([proof press END/scroll to bottom)
 * I made tl2 into a useful form and it's apparently now used on 11,300 pages (proof press END/scroll to bottom)
 * I made tlu into a useful form and it's apparently now used on 3,779 pages proof press END/scroll to bottom)
 * Adding comments about female Royal Marines not being allowed to fight which had been totally ignored by the mostly male community of Wikipedians: - I tried to fix that Green Beret had been changed to redirect straight to the US special forces (not a world-wide view[/url], UK uses Green Berets too), but that's all gone now, [[Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#The_.22average_Wikipedian.22|too many American editors "protecting" it
 * Aerial photograph of the Scientology UberBunker in England:
 * I made the Sexual Freedom Coalition article, which in the meany years since I was banned not had much done
 * I did a lot of work on the Latex clothing article, which since in the many years I have been banned looks like a joke with no one else improving it. Despite there being thousands of shops, a whole frikkin subculture around it even - again another case of WP turning a lot of less straight-laced people off
 * Spacccccccccccceeeeeeeeeeeeeee :)
 * I made the blood fetish (proof press END/scroll to bottom) article which for years no one apparently thought to make when it's actually surprisingly common: Articles_for_deletion/Blood_fetish - since I was banned no one else has done anything much at all to it.
 * I made the Macrovirus (fiction) article (I know, I like creepy stuff huh)
 * I invented the Blu-ray disc in 2006!!! Oknotquite ] - but this picture is now used on most foreign Wikipedias for the official Blu-Ray article now.
 * I uploaded the original Taiwan flag, suspiciously secretive chinese account deleted it, maybe 50 Cent Party: - now "nicely" redirects to "Flag of the Republic of China":
 * I put up a bi flag... Files_for_deletion/2011_September_3 - Fibonacci then copied me, admitting in that deletion page then didn't bother to credit me in his version after deleting mine: File:Bi_flag.svg - his version is now used on around 500 pages
 * I uploaded the File:Leather,_Latex,_and_BDSM_pride2.png flag, I didn't make the original design it, but a version made from the one I put up (proof) on the main BDSM article now and all the ones made from my version have completely managed to lose credit to original uplaoder through careless admin deletions it seems, nice.. at least they say the text came from the file that got deleted, I knew I recognised the descriptions I wrote in one saying "freedom of sexual expression for all" and one where I put a full history of the guy who made it -.-: File:Leather,_Latex,_and_BDSM_pride.svg -- File:Leather,_Latex,_and_BDSM_pride_-_Light.svg
 * I made the useful version of, barely anyone was using it because it was ageist and condescending, I changed it and now 1000+ use it (proof press END/scroll to bottom)
 * I made the original (originally deleted) (proof press END/scroll to bottom) which is used on... less than 50 pages, nice going Wikipedia you obviously offer a very welcoming environment for people who differ from the norm
 * I made the original (originally deleted) (proof press END/scroll to bottom) which is used on... less than 50 pages, nice going Wikipedia you obviously offer a very welcoming environment for people who differ from the norm and


 * I made Template:User_freespeech (deleted, lol)
 * (Ok it managed to seek asylum here: User:Feureau/UserBox/freespeech) proof press END/scroll to bottom)
 * ... seems there are now around 1000 people using it
 * I made the Template:User_world for world citizenship too, it probably says a lot about the state of Wikipedia at that time that that was deleted as "divisive" *sigh* -- now at with proof I made it. about 1000 people use it now at User:One/Userboxes/User_world'

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

--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)
 * Καλά, τα ελληνικά είναι πάρα πολύ δύσκολο να μαθευτούν. Μιλώ ισπανικό και πορτογαλικά, αλλά κανένα ελληνικά! Μιλάτε τα ελληνικά? ε  γκυκλοπ  αίδεια  *  22:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Obviously, yes : ) ε  γκυκλοπ  αίδεια  *  22:13, 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)}}
 * 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!
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 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

 * 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 -  St ar bli nd  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. Volunteer Marek 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 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 -  St ar bli nd  23:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANI 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 Requests for comment/Linuxbeak 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 Spiel  Chequers  23:42, 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.
 * 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 have been barely if at all had any improvement on them since I left kinda shows that - like I said, Systemic bias 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.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  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: 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." < !
 * 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 ...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 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Banning_policy&oldid=43009296 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 ( Systemic_bias ) 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)

Unblocked 1
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)
 * 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.


 * 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.  Volunteer Marek  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.  -- Jayron  32  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 ( (that one was actually stopping the donation link working for the site-wide appeal!) ("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!! - 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):


 * Informaction thread created 2009, replies in 2012 "for the user who values security, while still remaining mass-market-available and fairly user-friendly, the presence or absence of NoScript is the foremost decision point {..} It has been discussed in length and they {Google} know what they need to do, just have chosen not to do it yet.
 * RE: "NotScript": "Due to persisting Chrome/Chromium/Webkit limitations, any clone of NoScript cannot be as complete and reliable as the original {..} Giorgio may be nice and not say it, but don't put your trust in it as you would NoScript, you will be sorely disappointed."
 * RE: "ScriptNo": "Chrome/Chromium misses many key hooks and infrastructures which are indispensable to deliver the security features provided by NoScript with an acceptable degree of completeness and reliability. If/when they're there, I'm gonna port the proper NoScript to Chrome. Until then, any "NoScript clone" for Chrome can't be compared to the original, because it's just a different (and inferior) thing"
 * hackademix.net/2009/12/10/why-chrome-has-no-noscript


 * 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 . 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).


 * :) 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 Systemic_bias and 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 ... 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 -- 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)

 Hello Mistress Selina Kyle, Acalamari has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

WP:ANI
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 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.  N o f o rmation  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. Volunteer Marek 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 others...at 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. Volunteer Marek 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&#124; 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... 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 and sections below that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:EL
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)

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? Volunteer Marek 00:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked
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)
 * I was being repeatedly harassed and attempted to do the correct thing according to every rule that Wikipedia has, and report it... He should be the one being blocked here, all I did was report it...


 * == WP:ANI == above has a list of all the insults thrown at me above... None of which I responded to, I just reported it...
 * After the discussion was closed he then came onto my talk page to attack me here instead:


 * I have done plenty of editing since I came back and have attempted to do nothing but try improve the atmosphere of Wikipedia than be disruptive


 * Are you seriously saying that this is the kind of culture you want to have, where people are constantly constantly attacked and reporting it is treated worse than the ones insulting and trolling me? -- Mistress Selina Kyle  ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  00:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that avoiding WP:BAIT is one of the skills needed on Wikipedia these days. And you failed to demonstrate that you have this ability in the past few hours. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're right, but that's not a very healthy state of affairs. Malleus Fatuorum 01:28, 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. Volunteer Marek 00:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * BB isn't running a website that most here hate. Realpolitik. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? AN/I is a much more of a nasty, toxic place than WR at its worse and BB is one of a group of people primarily responsible for that. So if you count "AN/I" as a "website" most Wikipedia editors hate, than yeah, he sort of is. Without accountability, unlike WR. Volunteer Marek 01:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not WR and WR shouldn't even come into it really, he keeps attacking me and bringing up the site, it seems like I'm being used as a convenient target for whatever his issues with other people on the site are...


 * RE WP:BAIT I can, really, if you really want me to do that honestly...? But I thought it was better for users to stand up and report harassment rather than just accept it?


 * I mean come on, anyone can see who was the one deliberately trying to cause trouble... he was banned before only in October for sexually harassing people and then again in December for disruptiveness... Why is reporting someone who has done that again trying to harass people disruptive?


 * If someone can just talk to me about what they want me to do in a situation like this I'd really appreciate it because I'm not really sure how I am supposed to respond when the rules say that everything baseball bugs was doing was against the rules... people being rude and harassing should be blocked not the ones reporting it surely -- Mistress Selina Kyle   ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  00:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with the indef either and would have liked to see a (final) warning first, and/or maybe a topic ban of some sort. Then again, I went back through some 250 edits and saw only a few edits in article space, plus, I am not very much in the know about this editor's earlier history. But an injunction to edit only articles and article talk pages, for instance, I would have agreed to that. Mistress, making like you're an innocent victim here is not very conducive either. Still, I hope this can be solved a different way. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with it either, but it's kind of inevitable in today's climate I guess. Either they should both be indefinitely blocked or neither of them should be. And yes, I know the theory that indefinite blocks are not infinite blocks, but the reality is that their only purpose in most cases is to humiliate the victim by imposing a public confession of guilt and renouncing the ways of evil. And I'd be interested to see what evidence ASCIIn2Bme has for his bold assertion that most here hate Wikipedia Review. My guess would be that most here aren't even aware of it, and although it's rarely been kind to me I think it's a healthy outlet for the assorted nonsense that goes on here. Malleus Fatuorum 01:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's some stuff on my userpage if that helps at all, I've been making mostly small improvements since I've been unbanned to work myself up and learn things better before making any big changes to articles, I've also done a whole bunch of stuff in the templates to try and make them more friendly and encourage use of the wikilove stuff if you look -- Mistress Selina Kyle   ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  01:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I opposed unblocking but once she was unblocked she joined our community and should have been treated as a member; her affiliation with WR is irrelevant insofar as she isn't disrupting WP either here or there. I support Drmies' stance on the matter and believe a topic ban from noticeboards would have been a better solution (as well as people dropping WR talk, it's really not relevant.  I don't know who brought it up first, but it shouldn't be talked about either way).  N o f o rmation  Talk  01:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone made a legal threat against me on the pump and that discussion was mre reporting it and then some of them started attacking me - I'm really sorry I thought I was doing the right thing reporting this stuff according to the rules in No personal attacks and Civility - I was repeatedly insulted and I thought it was the right thing to report that (I understand now per what people said that you should just report instead of removing things at least I thought that#'s what people meant so I did that instead of removing and then got blocked anyway I don't really know anymore bleh) If you want me to not even report people doing that stuff I could I guess it would have been nice to have some kind of warning though yeah  -- Mistress Selina Kyle   ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  01:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't been following this too closely, but honestly, if this user is causing this much trouble, it's best to just part ways. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But the thing is if you look at my edits I've been nothing but constructive trying to help Wikipedia be better, I don't want to just quit on it I am trying to give it another chance after so many years, please? I followed what the rules said you are supposed to do and I reported it  -- Mistress Selina Kyle   ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  01:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Being in the right is no defence here I'm afraid. Malleus Fatuorum 01:35, 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)
 * if that is what people want then I would do that I promise I though tthe right thing you are meant to do according to all the rules is report this kind of stuff it said in baseball bug's block log that he has been blocked for sexually harassing people so it seemed like that's why he was being so aggressive in the talk page stuff... it's the kind of thing that drives lots of people who might otherwise edit off and I thought it should be stood up to bleh -- Mistress Selina Kyle   ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  01:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe you can just rest assured that if someone breaks a rule on ANI, it will be noticed. That page is being watched by 5288 editors as of this moment, after all. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:42, 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 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)


 * Tempers are pretty flared right now, you might want to just step back, and leave Wikipedia alone for a few days. Don't even read the discussion threads if you can manage to avoid them. If you still want to return, agree to some editing restrictions. Maybe even agree to pass all complaints you have through an administrator for him/her to decide whether to post somewhere, rather than posting any complaints yourself. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I am calm, 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 -- Mistress Selina Kyle   ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  01:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

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)
 * There is no basis for an indefinite block. Malleus Fatuorum 02:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The basis for the block is that she was unbanned for the express purpose of improving the encyclopeda (she didn't - she made only 48 mostly trivial article edits while making hundreds of edits to ANI and other non-encyclopedic pages) and that she would be on a short leash and any disruption would result in a re-institution of the community ban. She chose to cause disruption. She is now rightly re-banned. I oppose any effort to unban her. Raul654 (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "With all due respect", the worst that can be said is that she reacted sub-optimally to some taunting directed at her because of her involvement with Wikipedia Review, hardly a hanging offence. If anyone deserves an indefinite block it's Baseball Bugs. Malleus Fatuorum 02:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Raul654 I am guessing you did not appreciate me suggesting maybe using a wider group consensus based way of deciding featured articles in the request for comment about your directorship, if so I am sorry — please don't take it personally I really think that would really improve the community though I was just trying to help Wikipedia (it would probably help if there was a rule about leaving important discussions open for a few days I think too, to make decisions more based on real consensus rather than whoever is arounda at the time which would make it more fair on people with other jobs/education to keep up with not feeling that they have to be checking stuff a lot of the time or missing out) I have been trying to juggle article stuff and I do totally agree that is the most important thing whilst keeping up with my watchlist (I did a lot of vandal fighting and welcoming new people too!) but as I said before  I have been trying to get used to things agan and wander around the wiki pages before starting to make any big changes as people said I should before  — On the other hand I also think the community also needs to be a lot less WP:BATTLEGROUNDy  I think it's also important to encourage niceness too just as much beccause so few people are doing that, I edited some of the wikilove stuff and it seems like it has been kind of neglected except by a few people still trying for example look at WP:TEA it's a lovely page but most of the people adding to it are anonymous users, that to me seems kind of sad :/ -- Mistress Selina Kyle   ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  03:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I also think the block length is excessive and should be reduced to a week at most. There is justification for a block but not an indef block.


 * Selina, on the off chance you're unblocked again, I want you to go back and read everything I told you on this page, and do what I told you to do. I expressly warned you this would happen and how you could avoid it, and your response above was that it 'wasn't part of your unblock conditions'. Now we're here, and you're blocked again, and it will be a lot harder to undo it this time. Read what I said. Do it ten times if you have to, and then do it. If you are lucky enough to get another chance and you blow it again because you didn't listen, I will not support you again. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I will I'm sorry I thought I was supposed to do I thought if I just followed the rules it would be ok I didn't realise how bad just reporting the bunch of insults thrown at me would turn out, I think newyorkbrad is onto something that it would be cool if there was a "report" button for stuff breaking the rules that only accepted diffs and not opinions posted or something, I don't know just trying to work out where it went wrong I guess I should just shut up and not get involved in anything at all unless an admin says I don't know  -- Mistress Selina Kyle   ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  03:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Given she violated clear unban conditions, this block is a reinstatement of that ban. Mistress Selina Kyle was told she had no more chances left, and burned three or four in one evening. As a reinstatement of a suspended community process, it would be improper for any single admin to undo this block and it needs to be discussed on AN before it is done. She had her last and final chance the community was gracious enough to grant, and blew it. Courcelles 03:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * But I didn't break the unban conditions that is the thing I followed the rules I was reporting insults that someone else had made to me I have been trying to get used to them but I thought I did what I was supposed to do according to everything the rules say  I am sorry I just won't talk to anyone at all and just edit articles if that owuld make it better I am going to follow everything TechnoSymbiosis says as well as Marek if you will unblock me  -- Mistress Selina Kyle   ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  03:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned that you haven't demonstrated an ability to simply let things go, which is vital to an editor if she desires to contribute to drama boards. You were advised to avoid such boards, and then asked to leave them alone when you edited them anyway. Right or wrong doesn't matter anymore once the drama starts, and posting ANI threads the moment you get upset always makes things worse, even if you think your feelings are justified. When you had concerns about the behavior of other editors, you should have asked your mentor for advice instead of jumping into the fray. I really mean what I said above: you need a couple days, maybe a week, to let things cool down. And stop defending yourself because at this point, no one even cares if you were ultimately right. Just...let it go. Take a break, drink some tea, and in time maybe the community will let you return under some very strict conditions. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was trying hard to follow the rules and report threats and insults instead of responding to them I was trying to make sure I reported stuff instead of ignoring it to try stop it getting worse when Baseball Bugs kept putting his Weekly Reader stuff on my talk page and wouldn't leave me alone and I can't protect and no one else was doing anything so I thought the right thing to do was report it bleh... -- Mistress Selina Kyle   ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  04:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Y'know, getting ganged up on like that by a bunch of...enthusiastic editors, to put it mildly would push anyone's buttons, quite honestly. And so would this "one strike and you're out" condition that seems to have been arbitrarily set on the earlier unblock.  When you basically tell someone that their every word is going to be parsed & dissected for every nuance of a possible transgression, I'd probably feel a little tense around here too. Tarc (talk) 03:52, 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. Volunteer Marek 04:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was just trying to do the right thing and report stuff rather than reacting to it I never actually replied to any of it outside the admin pages, I thought admins would tell people to stop making personal attacks, not help them :( I promise I'd just edit articles unless someone tells me otherwise I promise, I'm sorry. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ ) 
 * MSK, you walked into something you did not take the time to understand. As a non-admin who voted in the unblock request, there are two simple things to remember: insults can always be ignored instead of escalated, and you did not have to accept the terms of the unblock if she thought they were "unfair", as others have claimed. In the first place, if I was an integral part of a site A critical to site B, and then wanted to join site B as an editor, regardless of past behavior, I'm in for a bit of trouble to say the least. On top of that, if someone tells me I have one chance, I say OK, and I blow it, it's my fault because I accepted those terms, not the other person's for offering them. Being unprepared or unaware isn't an excuse; you asked for it, you got it. I think whether you succeed in getting unblocked is very much a matter of the vagaries of the community at this point. MSJapan (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC) 04:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * the terms said "if problems arise regarding any violation of Wikipedia policies or behavioral guidelines, a reblock" so I was trying to follow the rules as much as posible and report people breaking them before it got out of hand I should have listened to Marek and just not bothered trying to fight the nastiness I know but I was torn between following the rules and that I was just trying to do a good thing and get people to realise the constant battlegroundish insults in official pages is wrong and shouldn't be there, if people disagree with something they should be able to talk it out  ... I added a load to


 * and made wikitea earlier cos barely anyone uses the WP:TEA page which seems to be the nicest idea I've seen on Wikipedia -- Mistress Selina Kyle   ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  04:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Mistress, sorry, but I can't do that. There is clear consensus for an indefinite block right now, and since I don't know your past (which, apparently, is an important part of this whole situation) I can't really gauge what would be more appropriate here--but in this case, for me to unblock you would be a clear violation of whatever trust I may have as an admin. As you know, I am not opposed to an unblock, but given the situation an unblock will have to come after some discussion and consensus. Maybe Marek, a volunteer whom you seem to get along with, can help you with that (i.e., get an admin's attention and relay to ANI), but I think you should wait a little while with such a request: there is no guarantee for success even in the long run, but there is a certain guarantee of failure in the short term. Wait a while, let the ANI dust settle, and make your case again--for an unblock with certain conditions--when tempers have cooled. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A few people have said though in the big discussion above that it should be reduced or removed, there doesn't seem to be any consensus to actually block me just people saying it's too controversial to unblock that a consensus needs to be found rather than any one person doing it like you are saying, I don't know...
 * If I could have a discussion alongside the baseball bugs block it would be nice if you would at least even consider lowering it like technosymbiosis and someguy said above that a week off might be a good idea, and that is what Baseball Bugs is banned for too actually so that seems more fair? please I don't know. It would be nice if there was a proper discussion since it seems like there can only be a decision if it's made on there rather than here and I've said all I can say now I guess, it would help if this discussion as linked or something...


 * I really want to try and I promise I'd stick by what technosymbiosis marek and the others said and this time just not try get involved in that stuff at all, even when trying to follow the rules because it seems like there's just too much potential for things to go bad even though I was honestly just trying to do what I the rules say -- Mistress Selina Kyle   ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  05:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Baseball Bugs was just unblocked actually after everything he did  (and then wouldn't stop messaging me ... I'm going to leave for a while as someone suggested but I thought that should be brought up, it seems wrong that he gets a proper discussion and I don't  -- Mistress Selina Kyle   ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  05:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

Reblocked
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)
 * The original post she made at ANI was an entirely appropriate response, in my view, to a legal threat made on one of Wikipedia's pages, something that is indeed prohibited by WP:LEGAL.
 * The personal attacks made on her at ANI were unnecessary and entirely unhelpful and, whilst she responded to them in an incorrect manner, given she's been away for five years we can hardly hold this against her.
 * People's views on Wikipedia Review are, in this matter, entirely irrelevant. This is about Wikipedia editing, not what happens on an external website.
 * MSK had been making a number of friendly and helpful gestures and other edits prior to this action taking place, and was, I feel, acting in good faith.
 * Judging from responses to the original unblock request, the initial block, which has been cited many times as evidence supporting this one, can be kindly referred to as 'suspicious'.


 * Well, I support the unblock and support your rationale, SalopianJames: I just hope no one comes in and decides to start wheel-warring over the block. Mistress Selina Kyle, now that you are unblocked I strongly recommend, in the absence of official restrictions, that you voluntarily keep away from the political side of Wikipedia: stay away from the dramaboards, RfCs...in fact, if you can, try not to get involved with anything at all in the "Wikipedia" namespace. Leave users you know to be hostile to you alone; but if you do need help with anything, or if you feel you are being attacked, turn to a user you trust for help instead of going to a noticeboard (I watch your talk, I'm sure Volunteer Marek does, and probably even SalopianJames now as well). Stick to improving articles: I can assure you that you'll be the better for it in every way if you just edit article content. Acalamari 10:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hear hear, SalopianJames. MSK, my suggestion to you is that you drop this account and WP:CLEANSTART with no link to your own account so that you can avoid the drama that, rightfully or wrongfully, follows you around.  Unfortunately I believe that regardless of what you do your career here is going to be plagued.  Now that you're unblocked you can cleanstart without being a sock and that may well be the most harmonious solution.  You're under no obligation to follow this advice, of course, it's just something I think is worth considering.  N o f o rmation  Talk  11:35, 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)
 * Yes. No baiting, and don't get baited. You know, I am sure, that you're on a short leash--that is, there will be editors and admins who will look at your contributions carefully (I'm not talking about myself: I have a terrible memory). Best thing to do is to prove them wrong. Move beyond TEA and do article content--that's how one builds up goodwill. BTW, FWIW, Bugs is being given the same advice, more or less. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 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. Volunteer Marek 17:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI: User_talk:SalopianJames. SalopianJames (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support unblock. Selina, stay away from dramu pages. Edit articles, don't discuss editors, at least for a few months till you get the hang of how Wikipedia works. It's not pretty, but that's the sad reality we have to deal with. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 18:48, 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)
 * Without wanting to sound patronizing to you, you really don't have to say anything beyond "thank you": instead, I think all of us here who support your unblock would ideally just like you to follow our advice and work on becoming the best editor you can be (well, that is what I'd like to happen, but I assume the views of the others would be similar). Like Volunteer Marek, I will be around to help you where and when I can. Acalamari 19:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to add my support for the unblock. Staying away from drama pages has been found to improve mental health. If there is anything I can do to help you, let me know. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Also adding my support for the unblock and sincerely hope it sticks. Selina, firstly, be aware that your unblock will probably be challenged, and you may be reblocked. I hope it doesn't come to that, but be prepared for that possibility. This is a good time to go back and re-read everything I've said on this page to you. You need to take the high ground, be the better person and rise above all of the murkiness that exists in Wikipedia. Ignore anything that focuses on either you or Wikipedia Review - neither of those topics have anything to do with building and improving the encyclopedia. If someone calls you a troll or suggests that you have ulterior motives, don't respond to them. Their opinions of you or your outside affiliations are irrelevant.


 * Aside from my previous advice to you to stay away from noticeboards and other drama-centric places, I think you need to defer to someone else in any situation where you feel you've been slighted. Do not react to it yourself, simply contact someone else (VolunteerMarek, myself, possibly even Risker or an admin who hasn't been involved in any of the drama thus far) and ask them what the right way to respond is. You need to do this every time until you get a feel for how to move around within Wikipedia without stepping on toes. Wikipedia has plenty of problems, we're all aware of that, but people aren't going to accept you being the initiator of change the way things are at the moment. Put that goal to the back of your mind for the foreseeable future. You need to acclimatise yourself to the environment here (6 months minimum), before you consider even the most delicate steps to try to change that environment. Show everyone that they're wrong about you - that you're a good editor - before you try effecting change in the system. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I've had to reblock you as I'm being threatened with ArbCom - we'll have to try and go about this another way I'm afraid. SalopianJames (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ok thank you for trying anyway, improving the encyclopaedia should be more important than any political stuff bleh I thought I was doing the things the rules say you are supposed to e.g. removing or reporting people, I didn't break the rules like I was told not to I was reporting a legal threat at first then insults then baseball bug insulting then revert war harassing me on my talk page  like I said I'm happy to just stay away from any of those pages and I have been  -- Mistress Selina Kyle   ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  08:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have opened a thread at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. SalopianJames (talk) 09:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks like I said I'm happy to just stay way from that stuff if there's a problem with me editing there and I'm sorry, I was just trying to follow the rules and report the legal threat/the insults after/the talk page harassment stuff to follow the rules as much as possible (like I was told to when I was unbanned) to try stop it becoming a problem I'll just watch I guess -- Mistress Selina Kyle   ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  11:38, 9 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 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

-- Mistress Selina Kyle  ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  16:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If the thread continues on its current course you will likely be unblocked sooner rather than later. It certainly is true that you have made edits to articles, templates, and welcomed new users, and you did keep away from the drama-areas once you were unblocked by SalopianJames, and I am sure you will continue to do so once you are unblocked again. As for the comments that have said you're only here to "enhance drama" and "not here to improve the encyclopedia", the simple...and best...thing to do is to ignore them; or alternatively, take note of them, but prove the people who said them wrong. If the community unblocks you again, by keeping to articles and templates as you have wanted to do, you'll won't get blocked and you'll be thanking the community via your hard work. :) Acalamari 16:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!
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 WikiJoint! 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?

This user finds you interesting...
Stay editing my friend. The most interesting man in the world (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * peer o_O -- Mistress Selina Kyle  ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  03:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Paedophile POV-pushing mass-sockpuppeeteer is back but I don't want to post on WP:ANI in case I get in trouble again
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)
 * Blocked by Versageek. :) Acalamari 15:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, as the block occurred during an off-wiki time for me. Just wanted to mention that sock reports should go on WP:SPI not WP:ANI. Nobody Ent 02:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

COINTELPRO
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)


 * Yeah I meantioned you should put the reason for adding a category that might be disputed in the edit summary? That site you just gave me appears to be someone's home page on what looks like a very old dialup internet company, that isn't really a verifiable source according to Wikipedia's rules  :  / -- Mistress Selina Kyle   ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  03:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a collection of COINTELPRO document excerpts released by the government. I added the category on the authority of the exceprts, not the site. 24.22.217.162 (talk) 05:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Please please please read Verifiability? The problem is, without any links to the original government sources, you have no proof that anything the website says reliable. It's not a peer-reviewed publication, it's someone's homepage/blog which is specifically not mentioned as reliable -- Mistress Selina Kyle   ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  05:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Again I am not going on the authority of the site. The site is merely a convenient collection of documents that were released by the US government and have been discussed in published sources — The COINTELPRO Papers by Churchill and Wall, Spying on America by James Kirkpatrick Davis, There's Something Happening Here by David Cunningham, etc. 24.22.217.162 (talk) 08:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh but if you've read them and know that is true, why not quote them instead? If you look at a lot of articles they sometimes even cite page numbers, the really good featured ones often have little quotes from hard copy stuff in the references too. You're probably right, but if you've only read the website you have no way to know if they have fudged any of the quotes and such to suit the POV is what I'm getting at, those kind of sites often do -- Mistress Selina Kyle   ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  08:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned at the beginning, category tags cannot be cited. As for "fudging quotes", the site has photocopies of the documents. I am not interested in trying to persuade you further. Do as you see fit. 24.22.217.162 (talk) 10:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes but I also mentioned you left the edit summary blank when you added all those categories to those controversial articles all of a sudden, that's the thing Don't feel angry or anything I'm just trying to just get to the bottom of it and make sure that is correct, I'm curious


 * The thing is if you say it's on that site but not give any information about what official document it is in (and the page prerably) we have no way to know without reading through every thing on that site that what you say is true, again it comes to whether people other than you can verify what you added is correct without pointing us at a library and telling us to read every book that's there we have no way of knowing if you got your statements from official text you saw or statements from person whose homepage it is


 * also it seems a pretty major thing if true it could help if there was anything in the articles about it too - I'm not as familiar with the rules as other people so I'm not sure if there's a specific rule but I know you aren't to put stuff in the intro of the article if there's no evidence within the rest of the article about whatever it is exists - it might be worth taking it to the help desk page or something, I'm not going to remove anything but others might if it stays there for a long time and there's still no way to know which original source is referred to, people just remove stuff because there's no proof, and that's it, gone, just trying to help -- Mistress Selina Kyle   ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  11:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar thanks
Selina, the barnstar you gave me here is much appreciated. Thank you! Binksternet (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks it's ok, you should check out WP:CSB and WikiProject Gender Studies (this one seems to be falling into neglect a bit only 9ish people last year joined and it doesn't have a shortcut) too I saw you were in WP:FEM already -- Mistress Selina Kyle   ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  08:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Signpost mention
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)
 * Thanks I can't reply here anyway though but he was doing more than baiting me he was trolling me, I didn't actually respond to any of it other than removing it at first per WP:RPA which I was then told not to so I didn't, just reported that the rules were being broken, I thought I should follow the rules as carefully as possible to try stop anything getting out of hand, I didn't break any rules so far as I know

Thank you
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)

Unblocked.
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)
 * Well, it's nice to be vindicated! Seems that, even were policy that it were not necessary, I should have taken this route to start with simply to prove just exactly how much support you have, and that the so-called 'community consensus' necessitating the block was nonexistent in the first place. Happy editing, I wish you a long career! SalopianJames (talk) 21:05, 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 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&#124; talk to me 23:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please look at the (first) ANI posting. --Rschen7754 23:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you link it? Perhaps I am looking at the wrong one...? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 00:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive737. --Rschen7754 10:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward
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.


 * In the unblock discussion, some editors suggested you be topic-banned from anything related to "Wikipedia Review". This component did not pass, but I strongly recommend you commit to this topic ban voluntarily. WR is a highly contentious topic with a number of editors, and it has been demonstrated that you are sensitive about it to some degree yourself. It would benefit you greatly if you can disengage from that topic altogether - don't mention it, don't respond to anyone mentioning it, don't defend it, don't distance yourself from it. Pretend it doesn't exist. Your outside affiliations have no bearing here, but they will become pit traps on the path ahead if you don't take decisive steps to ensure otherwise.


 * You've shown (eventually) that you are able to stay away from admin noticeboards, even in situations where it would be appropriate to use them. That fact helped you in the unblock discussion and went a long way toward showing people that you're receptive and willing to adapt. I suggest you treat this, too, as a voluntary topic ban. If you need help, there are people who will act on your behalf in a way that won't worsen the situation for you. For the time being, please defer to others and watch the way they deal with the situation (side note, VolunteerMarek does get a little heated sometimes, so perhaps don't emulate that part so much! No slight intended, VM.) and see if you can learn from that the approach you need (hint: calm, objective and willing to concede your point will go a long way).


 * There's no admin cabal. No offence intended to any admins that read this, but most of the time they can barely agree with each other, let alone have the momentum to form a conspiracy against you (or anyone else). The problems you raise about personal attacks and strongly biased opinions aren't admin problems, they're community problems. As you've seen, even non-admin regulars get away with stretching the rules to their breaking point. This is endemic to the type of governance Wikipedia has evolved over time and there's no easy fix, though the current civility ArbCom case may make some headway there (don't go and look it up to read it, by the way, it will do your head in). This is an issue you should avoid like the plague, just for the record, but I'm mentioning it here because I don't want you thinking that there's a systemic problem specifically with admins. It goes beyond that, which is why momentum on the issue takes so much time and effort to shift.


 * Be careful in the way you communicate. You link to the 'average Wikipedian' a lot, you raise issues of gender balance and general prejudice. These are real things that are real issues, and identifying the cause of these things is valuable. However, remember that you speak only for yourself. By all means include the 'sources' for why you feel the way you do, but try to phrase opinions as opinions - "I think one of the reasons there's a gender imbalance on Wikipedia is XYZ", not "XYZ is why there's a gender imbalance on Wikipedia". This seems like a small thing, but it'll make a lot of difference in the way people read tone and intention in what you write.


 * Don't stress! I can't stress this enough (see wut i did thar). If you've done the right thing, explain your reasoning clearly and once - the merits of your actions will speak louder than anything else and people will defend you on that basis. If you've done the wrong thing, accept responsibility and commit to not making the same mistake again. That's it. Don't allow yourself to be drawn into long and stressful defences of your actions. Don't feel like you have to respond to every single thing people say about you. Case in point, you emailed me about one of the 'oppose' comments in your unblock thread on ANI. You didn't need to. That was just one comment, it wasn't the groundwork for a flood of 'opposition waiting in the wings', and it didn't really have anything worth responding to. Other people commenting could plainly see that you'd made worthwhile contributions, regardless of that one comment. If you'd been able to respond to that, you probably would have and in the process you may have damaged your image simply because you were stressed. Remember, actions speak louder than words. If a comment is false or has no merit, it's not worth responding to - have faith that others will be able to figure this out for themselves. When you do defend yourself, be succinct (important!), calm and rational.

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)
 * That's all so spot on, it's a very tough to act to follow. I'll just add:


 * On wikipedia, what you say will be used against you. As TS said, bogus claims are best ignored.
 * Selina discussing WikipediaReview here is like walking through a minefield.
 * Says here you have 111 stalkers -- if something major comes up that needs dealing with just add a note to the bottom of your talk page here and I'm sure someone will address in relatively short time. Nobody Ent 00:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks lots I'll try keep it in mind (and keep track of it) :) -- Mistress Selina Kyle  ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  01:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)