Hi Jane, a page you edited recently, Thomas Pogge, is under discretionary sanctions because the dispute there is gender related. I'll leave the advisory template below to explain what that means.
Davidcpearce has said you are a friend of his, so I assume that you discussed the issue with him and arrived to revert twice on his behalf. That brings the number of reverts there by him or his friend to 22 since 21 May. Instead of reverting, please make your views known on Talk:Thomas Pogge or seek support on our biographies of living persons noticeboard. You should also make yourself familiar with Wikipedia:Edit warring. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Edit warring at Thomas Pogge
You may be blocked if you revert again at Thomas Pogge unless you have first got consensus for your change on the article talk page. You have never used the talk page at Talk:Thomas Pogge, and your joint editing with User:Davidcpearce seems to fall under our policy on improper coordination of accounts. See the recent edit warring report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Davidcpearce reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Warned again). Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 04:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jane, I've blocked this account indefinitely for violating this section of the sockpuppetry policy. It seems clear that the account is being used to make edits on behalf of David Pearce, who has said you're a friend. [1] The account has been used only sporadically since it was created in 2014, there has been no talk-page engagement, and there's little independent contribution.
If you'd like to appeal the block, you can use the template above and another admin will review it. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Davidcpearce for more information. SarahSV (talk) 02:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jane, a page you edited recently, Thomas Pogge, is under discretionary sanctions because the dispute there is gender related. I'll leave the advisory template below to explain what that means.
Davidcpearce has said you are a friend of his, so I assume that you discussed the issue with him and arrived to revert twice on his behalf. That brings the number of reverts there by him or his friend to 22 since 21 May. Instead of reverting, please make your views known on Talk:Thomas Pogge or seek support on our biographies of living persons noticeboard. You should also make yourself familiar with Wikipedia:Edit warring. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Edit warring at Thomas Pogge
You may be blocked if you revert again at Thomas Pogge unless you have first got consensus for your change on the article talk page. You have never used the talk page at Talk:Thomas Pogge, and your joint editing with User:Davidcpearce seems to fall under our policy on improper coordination of accounts. See the recent edit warring report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Davidcpearce reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Warned again). Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 04:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jane, I've blocked this account indefinitely for violating this section of the sockpuppetry policy. It seems clear that the account is being used to make edits on behalf of David Pearce, who has said you're a friend. [1] The account has been used only sporadically since it was created in 2014, there has been no talk-page engagement, and there's little independent contribution.
If you'd like to appeal the block, you can use the template above and another admin will review it. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Davidcpearce for more information. SarahSV (talk) 02:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)