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 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.
 * There are words after "sanctions already in place" in the template below, can you not see them? &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 09:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 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.) &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 09:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 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. &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 10:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

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... ;-) &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 11:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

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:. 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. &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 09:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)  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
&mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 11:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)