User talk:Chiappoloni

Consensus required violation on George Soros
Your restoration of contested edits on George Soros violates the "consensus required" restriction imposed on that page. If you do not self-revert your edits, I will file a request for sanctions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Enforcement request filed
I have filed an enforcement request at WP:AE in regards to your conduct and violation of restrictions at George Soros. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

== Response to 'NorthBySouthBaranof' NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) incorrect removal of LA Times and other articles regarding political donations and other for the George Soros page ==

I'm not sure how any of edits are able to be 'contested' in the first place? Being that the edits consisted of adding sub-headings for readability, and public information and published articles from news sources such as the Los Angeles Times surrounding local political investment, without offering opinions on said donations. These edits were added to the sub-heading titled, 'Political Involvement,' which makes it appear to be appropriate. It is surprising that this added information to a section, which appears lacking in organization, readability, and comprehensiveness, would not be applauded instead of 'contested?'

Moreover, is only one person allowed to contest an article's changes to be considered 'consensus?' Whereas, reverting via an apparent incorrect contesting of an article's edits, out of disagreement with said factual information, is only needed by one person (NorthBySouthBaranof (talk))?

Lastly, this user, NorthBySouthBaranof (talk), appears to need to perhaps be placed on some sort of restriction themselves? Not only have they removed added sources helpful to our readers, but have also removed history and factual information for our readers. In addition, this user has filed an enforcement request 6 minutes after asking for the reverted edits to be removed. This not only seems overtly 'hasty,' in not giving an appropriate amount of time to myself to make said edits, but the fact that these edits were incorrectly placed by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) in the first place, makes it all the more moot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiappoloni (talk • contribs) 16:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Note to NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)
Political donations for George Soros page

As it appears you have mentioned in a previous talk page which also applies here, "The material is not questionably or poorly sourced, is not a violation of BLP... You're welcome to discuss the issue on the article talk page or bring more viewpoints to that page, but mere disagreement with cited sources does not justify removal of sourced material."

Removing factual information, that better informs our readers or provides improved access to our readers, is not helpful, especially if it is presented in a data-oriented, fact-focused, manner. Removing facts is doing the opposite for our readers to understand all political donations. Why are Federal Elections more or less important than local US Elections as mentioned in the Los Angeles Times? These edits are adding factual information to a page and making a section easier-to-read by adding sub-headings and additional source information. Not sure how presenting published news articles and a full data-focused and fact-focused description is being removed or in violation. Legitimate news sources are being referenced or added for readers’ ease-of-access. To remove these sources for referenced articles is decreasing the ease-of-access and factual information for articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiappoloni (talk • contribs) 16:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Some sources have also been contested as unreliable. WP:RSN and WP:RSP would be the places to consult or evaluate if a source can be used.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 01:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Note on use of WP:AE
The arbitration enforcement page is not a freeform discussion area. If you would like to respond to the AE request which involves you, please do so in the area of that request marked for you to do so, not by starting several additional sections on that page. I have removed the malformed sections, but if you wish you are welcome to find what you wrote in the history and post that as a response in the appropriate section. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

A few tips
When making a talk page post,  should be used to sign and timestamp it. If you want to refer to editors and ping them, the re template can be used, like. The WP:TEAHOUSE is also a welcoming place for new editors. — Paleo Neonate  – 01:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

June 2020
To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year&#32;from certain pages (George Soros and Talk:George Soros). 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.  qedk ( t  愛  c ) 18:52, 3 June 2020 (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."