ANI Draft (User ShirtNShoesPls, Block on grounds of repeated disruption (CIR/IDHT): edit
ShirtNShoesPls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Reporting for continued misbehaviour across multiple articles.
- Frequent and repeated insertion of unsourced content with an obvious POV-push. Examples include Donald Trump's 2024 campaign ([1]), an article called "ageism against Joe Biden" ([2],[3]) ([4],[5]), on United States ([6][7][8][9]), and Andrew Jackson ([10]).
- Deliberate misrepresentation of sources ([11])
- User will also remove sourced content they simply don't like ([12], [13])
- When challenged user will misrepresent policy ([14],[15]), invented consensus ([16],[17]), declare removals of their material as "vandalism" ([18],[19]), or flagrantly declare unreliable sources are reliable ([20], [21]).
- Other historical items of note:
Quite simply this user has shown a complete disregard for basic wikipedia policy such as verifiability and NPOV, simply using articles as a way to soapbox their preferred POV, repeatedly going against consensus. No likelihood of behaviour change given repeated warnings. Requires permanent action.
Pbritti's evidence edit
Over the last three months, I have encounter multiple occasions of ShirtNShoesPls (SNSP) engaging in both intentionally and unintentionally disruptive behavior. Beginning in December, SNSP has engaged in and been warned for canvassing, edit warring (for which they were briefly blocked), insertion of false and malsourced information, and created articles seemingly to capitalize on the popular zeitgeist.
These are the most frustrating cases I encountered with still-existing diffs: After disputing the reliability of multiple reliable sources ([30]), they cited their own claims about their priest ([31], [32]). Borrowing a turn-of-phrase from a blog post, they ignored discussion opposing a move of an article to insist on renaming a subject something sensational ([33]) that resulted in a frustrating case of CITOGENESIS when the term was picked up by Bloomberg; their refusal to submit the evidence they repeatedly claimed to have resulted in the term being deleted as even a redirect.
SNSP's POV-pushing and edit warring has resulted in a temporary block. However, SNSP continues to display a persistent disregard for appropriate sourcing. As such, I support a more permanent action. In the previous ANI, I think a text wall led to the remarkable wealth of evidence going ignored and action not being taken. I would ask that we do not repeat this mistake. ~