Battle of Backbone Mountain

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Claims of largescale fraud in the 2020 election are baseless

And should be described as such. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree, and have restored the language. This language is not only very-well sourced, it is required by our WP:EVALFRINGE policy ("Ideas that have been rejected, [or] are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, ... should be documented as such, using reliable sources") and is also required by WP:BLP (false claims of election fraud impugn both voters and election officials, and those lies have real-life consequences). Neutralitytalk 21:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 editors have "discussed this" and "in the mean time it stays". Thanks for all that Neutrality. One "discussion" is 6 words of opinion, citing no policy or guideline. The second cites a guideline and incorrectly states that the guideline "requires" it, then claims that BLP "requires" it, by incorrectly applying the policy to unspecified people sprinkled in a group of people (name the person whose reputation is injured). What a robust "discussion". Let's ignore the fact that Trump made the claim during the counting and it was only afterwards that they were demonstrated to be without merit. Instead, let's imply that Bondi (who is the subject here, not Trump) knew from the start that they were without merit and intentionally put forth the claims. That is what this does when you force the word in too early in the article and THAT is actually a BLP issue. Clearly you're both ready to tag team revert to keep this needless descriptor in to make your point so any "discussion" is moot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshift36 (talk • contribs)
  • The claims may be baseless. I've made no statement about them. The implication here is that Bondi knew they were baseless when she made them. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A baseless claim is one that has no evidence for it. If she had evidence for it, she would have presented it. I do not understand what point you think you're making. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, and you don't want to. You've made that clear. Now you're going to try misusing EW warnings. Do whatever you want. Who cares about BLP. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We reflect what the reliable sources say, which is that unsupported and fringe notions are unsupported and fringe. Neutralitytalk 17:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repeating your incorrect application doesn't make it correct. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trump's claims of election fraud are baseless. This is directly reflected by the sources (Tampa Bay Times: "Claims from Bondi, Giuliani and Trump of wide scale fraud in Pennsylvania have come as the president’s margin over Biden in the state has dwindled in recent days. There is no evidence of fraud."). To repeat the Trump/Bondi claim here, without making clear that it is unsupported, violates BLP because it impugns election officials and voters and asserts that they violated the law. The consensus is against you - 3 other editors, on talk page, disagree with your attempt to remove this content. If you make this edit again, I intend to seek arbitration remedies because, in my view, this conduct rises to the level of persistent WP:PROFRINGE editing. Neutralitytalk 17:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pay closer attention warrior. I already self-reverted, so your little threat rant was not necessary. Probably made you feel better though. This isn't even close to an Arbcom complaint, so good luck with that kind of nonsense. Now that your point of view is being represented, you can stay off my user page. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ooh, yet another defeat in your multi-year partisan edit war to protect Bondi's reputation from the factual description of her actions. 72.86.132.107 (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RS say it so should we.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notion that everything printed in a RS gets automatic entry is absurd and you should know that. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The editor 'Niteshift36' is again edit-warring in the article to obfuscate that the claims of widespread election fraud were baseless.[1] In my view, this is tendentious behavior. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Glad you could focus on me. Ignore that fact that TWO editors made that exact change before me. Can you at least pretend that you aren't making this some sort of personal matter? While you screech about edit warring, note that you are the one who has 2 reverts on the same material. My single revert didn't obfuscate anything. The biggest thing being obfuscated here is either your obsession with me or your agenda to make this BLP more about Trump than the subject. I'll let you choose which one is greater. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus we seemed to come to when we had this exact fight a few months ago was to have that part be worded at how it was before the content dispute that arose yesterday. That being said, Niteshift36 is in fact not edit warring, as they have only made one revert. Curbon7 (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The edits that someone else did and I merely restored didn't really change the meaning. All they did was soften some of the words. On top of that. Snooganssnoogans simply hit revert because of one part, ignoring the fact that non-Trump related edits were also made. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Niteshift36 has been edit warring for years on Bondi's page, always claiming to be nonpartisan and the very arbiter of neutrality, always fighting to the umpteenth degree to delete, mischaracterize, minimize, or excuse any information that might cast any Republican's actions in a negative light. He's the kind of slippery partisan troll who should be but never is banned at WP.72.86.132.191 (talk)
  • Oh, an IP address using ad hominems. that never happens. You probably have been banned and that's why you hide behind an IP. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've committed the most inexcusable WP offense: describing accurately how another editor has behaved. Let's do revisit all your past claims that regrettable facts about Bondi should be excluded because only a relatively few news reports had mentioned them whereas any number of other news stories did not mention them!72.86.133.9 (talk)
We comment on the content, not users. and please bother to read wp:editwar. Also please read wp:soap and wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pam_Bondi