User talk:14Jenna7Caesura

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

indefinite topic ban from any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:AE

Do not add or change text in a closed WP:AE discussion. The closing of an AE discussion is considered an administrative action (one of the few times closing a discussion is). Thus, it is not allowed to modify or add to a discussion an admin has already closed. You are free to talk to an admin on their user page, ping them here, or in a fresh discussion at the proper venue, just not in a closed AE discussion. I reverted your additions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• Additionally, this edit [1] was clearly a violation of your topic ban. You need to read the above carefully. You are not allowed to edit or discuss any gender related topics or people associated with same, on any article, article talk page, your talk page or anywhere else at the English Wikipedia. If you do so again, you will be blocked from editing as part of the enforcement of said sanction. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• • I'm trying to as as cordial as I can, but if you revert that comment one more time, you will be indef blocked. I've provided you plenty of reasons why you can't add that material, and have explained it in deep enough detail that you should understand. This is your final warning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

You are clearly harassing me and causing psychological trauma. I thought I had to reply to the comment. You need to back off and cool down.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I added comments to a closed discussion because User:Swarm did ; so I thought it was okay.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&action=edit&undoafter=1082764248&undo=1082765254 was accident.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok then. Please note, most admin would have just blocked you the first time. I was fully authorized to do so, but I'm trying to NOT block you. I'm trying to help by giving you information, so you understand how to comply. But the terms of the sanction aren't negotiable. If you read the tone of the first message, you should understand that, I was merely trying to inform you of what, and why, and how you could talk to them. How you take it, I have no control over. I can only do what the community has asked me to do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Jenna, you are being formally sanctioned via a system that is an integral part of the project. You've been given nothing but lenient treatment actually. I know it is unpleasant, but you are expected to remain functional and cooperative with these processes. You don't claim you're being harassed and you don't invoke your mental health. See WP:NOTTHERAPY. If you are being psychologically traumatized by these mere comments from people who are bending over backwards to give you the benefit of the doubt, that is a serious problem and you should probably step away from editing entirely. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 09:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

It's a big encyclopedia

Hi, 14Jenna. I don't believe we've interacted before, but I'd been following the AE thread. I'm not here to say the decision reached was right or wrong, but I was hoping to share some thoughts, as someone who's been editing Wikipedia for a good while now, and has seen a lot of people wind up in your situation.

The first thing to remember is that a topic ban means that the admins reviewing your case still saw you as doing a lot of good work. If they saw you as a net-negative, they would block you, not topic-ban you. Looking at your contributions, I see you've made over 2,000 edits in 7 months, and I see that a lot of them have been to our articles on the law, which are probably the most neglected intellectual topic area there is. That's all really promising.

When a newer editor gets topic-banned, if they don't just quit editing one of two things tends to happen:

1. They sneak in a few topic-ban violations hoping no one will notice, or they nibble at the edges of the topic ban until they "fly too close to the sun", or they create a new account to try to evade the ban, and they get blocked—usually temporarily at first, but the vicious cycle has begun, and soon enough they're indefinitely blocked.
2. They find other things to edit about. They put completely out of mind the topic area they're banned from. Over the course of six months to a year, they get a better sense of collaborative editing, and build up a portfolio of evidence that they can work well with others even when inevitable disputes arise. And once they can show all that, they appeal the topic ban.

Maybe my perspective is skewed because I do anti-sockpuppetry work, but my sense is that most people pick Option A. But right now you have the choice which way you want things to go. There's still lots of articles about Supreme Court decisions left to be written or expanded. Like, lots of them. I've written two in the past week. (I'm sure you have other interests as well; I just gather that much from skimming your last few hundred edits.) So you could work on those interests. Or you could start the vicious cycle.

I hope you pick Option B. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

Hello, I'm Sahaib. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Category:Acid attack victims have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Sahaib (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

"Unpopular minority" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Unpopular minority and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 9#Unpopular minority until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Multiple accounts

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, despite Tamzin's excellent advice above where she linked our policy regarding multiple accounts, you have created and begun editing with an undisclosed account. You cannot edit under other accounts while there are active sanctions on this one.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Freedom to Vote Act

Hello, 14Jenna7Caesura. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Freedom to Vote Act, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Freedom to Vote Act

Hello, 14Jenna7Caesura. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Freedom to Vote Act".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Fiasco (TV series)

Hello, 14Jenna7Caesura. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Fiasco (TV series), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Fiasco (TV series)

Hello, 14Jenna7Caesura. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Fiasco".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Lawrence Washington (1565–1616)

Hello, 14Jenna7Caesura. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Lawrence Washington (1565–1616), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Lawrence Washington (1565–1616)

Hello, 14Jenna7Caesura. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Lawrence Washington".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)