User talk:68.56.230.233

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.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Gamaliel (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

68.56.230.233 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I read the guide, but I am still unsure of why I was blocked. My initial reaction would be that I made a formatting error on the talk page of a controversial topic, but the length of the ban seems unduly harsh in this case. The 6 month block occurred after I made a comment on the talk page on a controversial topic, where I pointed out that the standard of Reliable sourcing seems inappropriate for topics which are inherently based in self-published media. In this case, I was referring to Anita Sarkeesian, and the fact that her content, her harassers, and her critics are entirely self-published, but the article does not reflect any criticism from the media she is a part of. My suggestion being that self-published subjects needed a different format for reliable sourcing, as their work is inherently stuck within this context. If my error was the format, then I am aware of it and will adjust accordingly. If otherwise, I will need some elaboration.

Accept reason:

Consensus at WP:AN is to unblock. Carry on. Jayron32 18:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

---