Notification: listing of Unpopular minority at WP:Redirects for discussion. Tag: Twinkle |
→Multiple accounts: new section |
||
Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
[[File:Information.svg|30px]] |
[[File:Information.svg|30px]] |
||
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect [[:Unpopular minority]] and has thus listed it [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|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. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 18:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC) |
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect [[:Unpopular minority]] and has thus listed it [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|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. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 18:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC) |
||
== Multiple accounts == |
|||
<div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px">[[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]]<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''2 weeks''' for [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry|abusing multiple accounts]]. Note that multiple accounts are [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Legitimate uses|allowed]], but '''not for ''[[Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts|illegitimate]]'' reasons''', and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be [[Wikipedia:Banning policy#Edits by and on behalf of banned editors|reverted]] or [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G5|deleted]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[WP:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. [[User:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">Jezebel's '''Ponyo'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">''bons mots''</span>]]</sup> 23:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)</div></div><!-- Template:uw-sockblock --> |
|||
*Unfortunately, despite {{U|Tamzin}}'s excellent advice above where she linked our [[WP:SOCK|policy regarding multiple accounts]], you have created and begun editing with [[User:0O21Lam76ptarmigan|an undisclosed account]]. You cannot edit under other accounts while there are active sanctions on this one.-- [[User:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">Jezebel's '''Ponyo'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">''bons mots''</span>]]</sup> 23:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:16, 19 May 2022
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)
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)
- 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:
- 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.
- 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
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Jezebel's Ponyobons 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 Ponyobons mots 23:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)