This article was nominated for deletion on March 29, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tampa Bay, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Tampa BayWikipedia:WikiProject Tampa BayTemplate:WikiProject Tampa BayTampa Bay articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Florida, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.University of FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject University of FloridaTemplate:WikiProject University of FloridaUniversity of Florida articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
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). Neutralitytalk21:27, 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]
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. Neutralitytalk17:28, 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]
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)
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)
