User talk:79.239.37.228

What is the reason for this "block"? What "sanctions already in place"? I just fixed obvious errors and added well sourced new content. For example, Krugman is not a reporter. Or a tweet on a personal Twitter account - even if it's from a reporter - is not the same as a news report. Or Trump didn't complain about "misrepresenting", but really said "the most corrupt & biased of the Mainstream Media". I sourced by a link.

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

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

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. 79.239.37.228 (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

This block is no longer necessary as semi-protection has been placed as an enforcement measure. If you do not abide by our discretionary sanctions system in the future this block will immediately be turned back on. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are words after "sanctions already in place" in the template below, can you not see them? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The sanctions are clearly visible, unless editing using our mobile GUI... which you are not. I'm not here to debate with you about what you added, as I do not get involved in direct content changes nor disputes. (Reviewing admin, they replied inline above in their original comment, in case this reply is confusing.) — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This specific sanction yoo are referring to is about reverting, which I didn't do. I added new content (well sourced and obvious errors) I wrote completely on my own. Which you reverted. And now you refuse giving reasons why you reverted them.

Addition of contentious content, challenged by another editor's reversion, which you then readded without obtaining the required consensus. This isn't as hard to comprehend as you're making it seem. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please, personal insults are not helpful.

First, it's not "contentious content". And so far nobody "challenged" my content. It seems that somebody just reverted it, but without challenging the content, and the accompanying "summary" of the revert is not related to my changes at all. The "summary" seems to me just an excuse for reverting without having a real reason for the revert. And you are also refusing to talk about the changes.

Secondly, what you call "readd" contains again further new text, which you also reverted which has never been challenged and without giving any reason. See my summary of that change. In general, I think of course it's to not agree with changes somebody else has done. But I think just removing changes without giving any reason is not a good practice.

And even if somebody doesn't like some specific aspects, he should change the specific parts in question instead of simply reverting everyting all at once, including all changes nobody disputes in any way. Don't you agree?

What about the following? What specific changes do you think are "bad" ones, for example because they are not well sourced or for some other reason? Then keep them removed. But please add (or allow me to add them again) all the other changes which are not disputed by anyone. What do you think about that?

BTW, I tried to start a discussion on the talk page of the article about my changes. But I am even not allowed to do that. Wikipedia is really a "funny" place... ;-)

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans //  11:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating the sanctions already in place, specifically you did not get the required consensus before restoring challenged material on the page Fake News Awards, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Familiarize yourself with this before going any further

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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 that 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.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.