Poor Mistress Selina Being Attacked! Options

[Malber]

Our very lovely Mistress Selina is being raked over the coals at Wikipedia!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...C_please_review

There's that awful troll malber and evil SlimVirgin saying awful nasty things about her. We must help her!

Penfold: to the Mark III

[Lir]

Selina should really link specifically to what she is talking about, I finally found the edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=41841027

Its interesting, what could possibly be a justification for making the link <nowiki> except that it makes it difficult for people to click on? Its amazing what lengths Wikipedia admins will go to in their abuse of power; and then Grace Note, who apparently fits right in with the culture there, joined in and removed the link with his explanation, "Rm linkspam. Please don't spam your forum and try not to harass or abuse other editors." when it was clearly not linkspam, it was simply a link to GraceNote swearing in our forum (that is, harassing and abusing other users). How is it linkspam to link to this forum, in a conversation about this forum?

[Malber]

Oh Goodness, Oh Crikey! She's now been banned for 24 hours by Zscout370!

[Lir]

Oh Goodness, Oh Crikey! She's now been banned for 24 hours by Zscout370!

21:32, 2 March 2006, Raul654 (Talk) blocked Mistress Selina Kyle (contribs) (expires 21:32, 1 May 2006) (Posting personal information, and trolling on User_talk:Netscott )

Almost immediately, and clearly without discussion, Raul upped the ban to a 2 month ban; you'd think, when already accused of abusing his power, he would try not to be such a corrupt fellow. Raul's official explanation, probably in an attempt to hide any evidence that the ban has anything to do with the forum at all, is that Selina was 'trolling' on User:NetScott's page... here is Selina's only comment there: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=41918594

In response to Selina's alleged trolling, NetScott said, "Thanks Selina, I actually was in effect aware of that... the intention of my posting that editorial comment was moreso to bring the other editors on that article in on what's occuring. Cheers!" This reminds me of the time that I was banned for vandalism of a user's page, but the user clearly didn't feel that I had vandalized their page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=41915233

[Blu Aardvark]

Well, yes. Raul likes to throw his weight around. No, neither event warrants any extended block. Posting Grace Note's alleged real name does no harm whatsoever, really; it's nearly public knowledge, and Grace Note has, at the old forum, posted his email address publicly (and the email address does contain his alleged name). That thread seems to be one of the ones nuked by Igor, however.

[Lir]

Well, yes. Raul likes to throw his weight around. No, neither event warrants any extended block. Posting Grace Note's alleged real name does no harm whatsoever, really; it's nearly public knowledge, and Grace Note has, at the old forum, posted his email address publicly (and the email address does contain his alleged name). That thread seems to be one of the ones nuked by Igor, however.

Funny how posting my real name was considered justifiable by Jimbo & Cult, but Grace Note is exempt even though every vulgar email he sends contains his name; assuming it even is his name, its scattered all over the internet. And Raul apparently didn't feel this could be dealt with by the existing channels for resolving complaints, he feels he should just do whatever he wants.

As far as I can tell, this is the edit which 'contains' personal information -- notice how Selina is removing Grace Note's trolling, and simply uses his name in her edit comment, asking him yet again to stop stalking her.

[Blu Aardvark]

Also note that Grace Note was incorrect in the insistence that Zordrac's statements needed to be removed. By restoring the statements, Selina was taking responsibility for them - perfectly acceptable per [[WP:BAN]], albiet frowned upon.

Selina, my advice to you would be to do one of two things. Either dump your Mistress Selina Kyle account and create a new one to avoid the needless harrassment by multiple admin-trolls like MarkSweep and Raul654, or dump Wikipedia altogether.

[blissyu2]

Perhaps someone should put that link somewhere. Its clearly Wikistalking.

Someone else got banned indefinitely for being the victim of Wikistalking though - by Antaeus Feldspar - and then repeating Antaeus Feldspar's real name (per Daniel Brandt's page) when asking him to go away.

So they have a precedent. If you're seriously harassed, you'll get banned for it.

[guanaco]

Selina will be unblocked after 24 hours. Raul forgot to unblock her before making his ridiculously long block.

[Malber]

Crikey! That Malber just won't quit!

[Golbez]

I decided to go look at MSK's history to see just where things went wrong: About seven and a half hours after she joined.

Her first edit is at 14:19 eastern on December 17. By 15:05 - 46 minutes later - she had plunged head-first into the Londonderry/Derry fight, which is one of those things that is as close to settled law as you can get on Wikipedia, even removing the comment at the top of the page explaining this (first done at 15:08 - other edits were to pages which did not contain this notice). She did this without edit summaries, thus giving the notion of trolling or vandalism. She started dabbling in userboxes at 16:05, 57 minutes later.

In her first edit to her user page at 16:07, and in this first edit she added a box stating she was an administrator. (and a cute "merow" statement) At 21:36, after 5 hours 29 minutes, Sean Black removed it, with the summary "You are not an admin". Two minutes later - having begun editing or left the page before Sean did it - WAvegetarian informed her that it's not good for her to have that box. At 21:44, she responded to him saying "ok sorry removed" and "I doubt I could become an admin since it seems a bit biased towards those who spend nearly ALL THEIR LIFE on wikipedia but who knows, probably not even worth a try though, no?" Time elapsed: 7h25m.

She makes some legitimate edits (in fact, apart from the Derry stuff, all her mainspace edits that I've seen so far seem legitimate), then mentions her new World Citizen userbox on a hundred or so user talk pages. The few responses are all positive.

At 21:47, 3 minutes after her initial response on her talk page, she replies to Sean Black with "You could've at least had the common courtesy to let me do it myself, but the grumpy/oppositional tone "YOU ARE NOT AN ADMIN." suggests doesn't exactly give the impression that you have any, anyway."

7 minutes later, Sean responded apologizing for what could have been seen as a grumpy tone.

Now, before all of this, she had received several vandalism warnings, presumably (I could go through again and check) due to her Derry/Londonderry edits. While I think they should have explained to her the situation, it kind of already was in the comments on Derry. But still, they should have pointed her the way, they were biting a newbie.

MSK, the way I see it, you got involved in a fight without reading up on it - forgiveable, as there can be lots and difficult to find documentation on such things. And they bit the newbie by not explaining this to you. However, when you deleted the comment explaining it, that was a bit far. Claiming you were an admin was a poor choice, and Sean did nothing wrong in removing it, and you decided - within 7 hours of joining - that apparently all admins are shutins who have a clique. Either you weren't a newbie, or you easily resort to insults. Based on your history since then it just seems like you hunt for fights, but I could be mistaken based on a small sample size.

If you truly wish to contribute - and I do see many legitimate edits - perhaps you should come in with a new name. After all, even NoPuzzleStranger and Gzornenplatz were tolerated until they started exhibiting tell-tale signs of being Wik, which were not positive traits. If it's possible to spend a few months being a good quiet user, then pop up and say "Hi, I'm MSK, I decided to try a new beginning," I'm sure that they would welcome you with open arms. I certainly would.

[blissyu2]

Would they welcome me with welcome arms? I started a 2nd account, stayed out of trouble, and kept my nose clean, and then got banned as a "sock puppet of a banned account", 5,000 legitimate edits later.

Something tells me that if MSK made a new account, they'd still find her and stalk her, sooner or later.

[Blu Aardvark]

Would they welcome me with welcome arms? I started a 2nd account, stayed out of trouble, and kept my nose clean, and then got banned as a "sock puppet of a banned account", 5,000 legitimate edits later.

There is always the option of an appeal of your ban.

[Selina]

AS LONG AS THERE'S NO PEA SOUP STUFF

OK silliness aside, they're obviously determined to keep me off Wikipedia despite receiving emails from several admins asking me to *come back*... Whatever..

[Blu Aardvark]

AS LONG AS THERE'S NO PEA SOUP STUFF

OK silliness aside, they're obviously determined to keep me off Wikipedia despite receiving emails from several admins asking me to *come back*... Whatever..

Well yes, of course. My advice? Either forget about going back to Wikipedia - you're running into direct conflict with abusive admins, or create a sockpuppet and avoid any and all conflict. Avoid reverts, unless it's vandalism. Reverting someone's good-faith edit is bound to piss them off, even if it was loaded with PoV or other issues. Someone else will revert it if a revert is needed. Avoid debates with admins - in fact, stay of off WP:AN and WP:AN/I - it's primarily a bunch of trolls there, and you don't need that. Avoid debates on topics you feel strongly about - this includes Deletion Review discussions or userbox issues. Leave SlimVirgin (and her lapdogs Sean Black and Grace Note) alone, and don't edit any articles she edits - she's an abusive PoV pusher, and I'm sure you've run afoul of her many times now. Simply edit as best as you can, do not revert AT ALL, do not engage in heated debates, leave SlimVirgin's articles alone, and... yes... leave userboxes alone. Don't refer to this board at all, in any discussions - the cabal does not approve. Don't accuse people of PoV pushing or vandalism, unless vandalism is obvious (ie, replacing the article with PENISPENISPENISPENISPENIS). You're not a member of the elitist Cabal, so you can't call someone a PoV pusher without violating WP:CIV. (SlimVirgin is a member of the elitist Cabal, so she can get away with it, to an extent). Actually, you'll be better off not using edit summaries at all, and simply reading talk pages. Leave blank edit summaries, or be briefly descriptive. Don't edit talk pages, but do read them. This is probably your best bet in avoiding conflict, and hence, tripping the Cabal's banhammer.

[Poetlister]

There is always the option of an appeal of your ban.

Yes, appeals do work sometimes

[Malber]

Well yes, of course. My advice? Either forget about going back to Wikipedia - you're running into direct conflict with abusive admins, or create a sockpuppet and avoid any and all conflict. Avoid reverts, unless it's vandalism. Reverting someone's good-faith edit is bound to piss them off, even if it was loaded with PoV or other issues. Someone else will revert it if a revert is needed. Avoid debates with admins - in fact, stay of off WP:AN and WP:AN/I - it's primarily a bunch of trolls there, and you don't need that. Avoid debates on topics you feel strongly about - this includes Deletion Review discussions or userbox issues. Leave SlimVirgin (and her lapdogs Sean Black and Grace Note) alone, and don't edit any articles she edits - she's an abusive PoV pusher, and I'm sure you've run afoul of her many times now. Simply edit as best as you can, do not revert AT ALL, do not engage in heated debates, leave SlimVirgin's articles alone, and... yes... leave userboxes alone. Don't refer to this board at all, in any discussions - the cabal does not approve. Don't accuse people of PoV pushing or vandalism, unless vandalism is obvious (ie, replacing the article with PENISPENISPENISPENISPENIS). You're not a member of the elitist Cabal, so you can't call someone a PoV pusher without violating WP:CIV. (SlimVirgin is a member of the elitist Cabal, so she can get away with it, to an extent). Actually, you'll be better off not using edit summaries at all, and simply reading talk pages. Leave blank edit summaries, or be briefly descriptive. Don't edit talk pages, but do read them. This is probably your best bet in avoiding conflict, and hence, tripping the Cabal's banhammer.

But then she would have to change who she is!

Crikey!

[CDRome]

Would they welcome me with welcome arms? I started a 2nd account, stayed out of trouble, and kept my nose clean, and then got banned as a "sock puppet of a banned account", 5,000 legitimate edits later.

That right there, shows how selfish, biased and ridiculous Wikipedia admns can be.

[Golbez]

Would they welcome me with welcome arms? I started a 2nd account, stayed out of trouble, and kept my nose clean, and then got banned as a "sock puppet of a banned account", 5,000 legitimate edits later.

Something tells me that if MSK made a new account, they'd still find her and stalk her, sooner or later.

Who were you banned as?

[Blu Aardvark]

Who were you banned as?

I see this question was never answered. Blissyu2 first editted Wikipedia anonymously, then under the username "Internodeuser". He was banned for a period of one year via an Arbitration Committe injuction against him - the reasons for the ban included violations of WP:NPA, WP:CIV, and WP:NLT. About six months later, he created the account "Zordrac", and editted Wikipedia for a while, until such point as he started to piss off the Elitist Cabal, and a CheckUser was performed on his account, matching him with Internodeuser. In addition, someone found a post on a Google Group by a "Zordrac", which included two of his email addresses - one of them including the handle "Blissyu2".

He could probably answer your question better, however.