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. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Lifteveryvoice, are the candidates in the infobox not the leading candidates? Also, you said someone was: making sure women candidates have the worst pictures
, but all I see is
Felicia Moore, and the picture is from her article. Further, you prefaced that with: Someone has been deliberately screwing with this page from Day 1
. Who? If that's the case, I'm prepared to take decisive action, but I need proof (evidence in the from of
WP:DIFFs). Thank you.
El_C 00:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
vandalism( diff), so this is quite a strange brew, either way. El_C 01:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
So I can’t be new? And someone else can joyfully jack a page with no oversight because they’ve been here longer?
Whatever. Lifteveryvoice ( talk) 01:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Seems like this Bottleofchocolatemilk is spoiled and is wreaking havoc with local election pages. Lifteveryvoice ( talk) 01:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Collapsing for readability.
El_C 03:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
|
---|
This individual has basically been doing this for a week, just making a bunch of destructive edits and justifying them with vague platitudes about "discrimination," "disinformation," et cetera. They seem to be under the impression that any Wikipedia edit which even marginally reduces the visibility of a certain candidate actually has an effect on the election in question and could potentially make that candidate lose the election which makes no sense. They've gone so far as to claim that leaving some candidates out of the infobox could cause those candidates to lose the election. It should go without saying that Wikipedia's job is to catalogue the events of the election, and minute details like this have no bearing on the outcome of the election. Their main war has been against the "Qualified" and "Did not qualify" sections, and it seems like they're trying to argue that we shouldn't distinguish between which candidates are and are not on the ballot because that's "disinformation" or something. In the past couple days they've really been ramping it up, the most laughable example being when they removed the results table and gave some excuse about it being "discriminatory" because not every candidate is on the ballot. As justification for removing it, they claimed that the 2017 Atlanta mayoral page doesn't have one (it does) even though 99.9% of Wikipedia elections articles have them (this again should go without saying, but listing the results of an election is not discriminating against certain candidates who weren't on the ballot). They are also just saying a bunch of crazy stuff, like seriously accusing me of working for Kasim Reed's campaign. If you don't believe me just look back at the last few edit summaries and see for yourself. And the craziest part is, that might actually be projection. Take a look at these two Commons images, which I'll call Exhibit A and Exhibit B. Both are pictures of Raina Bell-Saunders, a candidate in this mayoral election. Both were uploaded by Lifteveryvoice, both are tagged as "Own work," and the Volunteer Response Team apparently verified that "the copyright holder has approved publication" of both images. These are the only pictures of Bell-Saunders on Commons. Based on this (among other things which I'll get into later), I believe that Lifteveryvoice is either Bell-Saunders or someone associated with her (note that it is against Wikipedia rules for someone with a close connection to something to make major edits to that thing's Wikipedia page). Think about it: the Volunteer Response Team has verified that Lifteveryvoice *owns* both of these pictures. How would that be possible unless Lifteveryvoice was Bell-Saunders or someone close to her? It's not as though these are candid pictures, which could have been taken by Lifteveryvoice at an event of some sort; they are clearly posed portraits, meaning that Bell-Saunders knows the person behind the camera (assuming she wasn't the one who took the pictures). Also, pretty much every single edit made by Lifteveryvoice was directed towards elevating the lesser-known candidates who didn't appear on the ballot (deleting the leading candidates from the infobox, deleting the results table, insisting that no distinction be made between which candidates are and are not on the ballot) of which Bell-Saunders is one. But if that's not enough for you, there's more. Take a look at these tweets from Raina Bell-Saunders's official account: Exhibit C, Exhibit D, Exhibit E, Exhibit F, Exhibit G, Exhibit H. Seems like somebody sure is very invested in her representation on Wikipedia. She's being very dramatic about how she's represented on Wikipedia, which is line with Lifteveryvoice's overdramatic postulations about how putting someone in a different section on a Wikipedia page is "discrimination" and "disinformation." Exhibit F is the best example of this; she makes it sound as though her Wikipedia picture is of direct relevance to the campaign. Exhibits D and E show that she has had direct contact with people at Wikipedia at some point; remember that Lifteveryvoice had contact with members of the Volunteer Response Team in order to verify that they owned Exhibits A and B. In Exhibit G, she warns Felicia Moore that her picture was changed and implies that this was malicious (Moore's picture was only changed because the original was deleted from Commons); recall Lifteveryvoice's claim that someone was "making sure women candidates have the worst pictures." In Exhibits G and H, she claims that the person behind these "malicious" edits was associated with a campaign; recall that Lifteveryvoice directly accused me of working for the Reed campaign and note that Bell-Saunders isn't exactly a very big fan of Reed and now supports Moore. But the biggest smoking gun is Exhbit I ( https://twitter. com/search?q=from%3ARainaBSaunders%20%23lifteveryvoice&src=typed_query&f=live Wikipedia doesn't allow Twitter search links, so just remove the space and then paste it in). Yep, this is a laundry list of tweets from Bell-Saunders containing #lifteveryvoice, Lifteveryvoice's username. Could it be a coincidence? Absolutely, "Lift Every Voice and Sing" is basically the national anthem for African-Americans. Or maybe this proves that Bell-Saunders is Lifteveryvoice. I'll let you be the judge. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 01:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC) |
So I can’t find someone’s hashtag a catchy username without it raising a conflict of interest thing? This is serious deflection from the “work” Bottleofchocolatemilk is doing on other local election pages. Lifteveryvoice ( talk) 02:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
By stating candidates aren’t “qualified” bottleofchocolatemilk is claiming those campaigns have stopped which is not true. Why else add a parenthetical that Raina Bell-Saunders qualified as a write-in, then throw her in the “Unqualified” group?
The fact is unless bottleofchocolatemilk is working for another campaign, City Hall, or even the State of Georgia, that person has no idea what is going on with the legal process of qualification. Lifteveryvoice ( talk) 02:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
There is no such thing as “non-qualified” candidates. Write In Candidates qualify during qualification week the same as paying candidates. Lifteveryvoice ( talk) 02:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
@c.Fred please see my outside note to qualified candidates. All candidates, write in or not, are qualified candidates. Being a check box on a ballot screen or having a voter type in a name requires the same process of qualification Lifteveryvoice ( talk) 02:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Polling is not an adequate test of candidate viability nor is an infobox is needed outside of presenting one set of candidates as “better” than others which is what this is really about. Bottleofchocolatemilk needs to disclose their own interests in the Atlanta race since they are all about disclosing information. Lifteveryvoice ( talk) 02:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
The AJC is a good source, even if it leaves write ins at a disadvantage. This is a better option than giving people the impression there are only six “real” candidates who magically qualified when all the candidates went through the qualification process. Lifteveryvoice ( talk) 02:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Write ins fill out a notification with City Hall per the qualifying statute. This is not disclosed on a ballot. Alex Barrella qualified as a write in per is Twitter Feed. Not sure about Devonta Sullivan. Lifteveryvoice ( talk) 02:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
The municipal and state elections code does not make distinctions in how a candidate qualified. Candidates have 3 ways to qualify (pay up, collect signatures, write in).
The distinction has been exploited in Atlanta to make the candidates with money seem /more/ legitimate by pre-printing their name on a ballot. There is no primary and all candidates run as non-partisan. Really it’s an exploitative move geared to let the candidate who takes in the most money the automatic front runner, (Redacted). Lifteveryvoice ( talk) 02:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
C Fred’s compromise is fair. The Write Ins are already at a disadvantage from lack of exposure but including them in a separate category is more fair than claiming they did not qualify at all.
FYI, I’ve reviewed the Bell-Saunders feed and it looks like she withdrew per the bio. Lifteveryvoice ( talk) 02:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
/Twitter feed & bio shows Raina Bell-Saunders withdrew. She needs to go in the same category as Keisha Lance-Bottoms. Lifteveryvoice ( talk) 02:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Her personal Facebook page has a public post from August 25 where she says she has withdrawn. Lifteveryvoice ( talk) 03:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
All this is a lot if work when none of the 14+ candidates will get a majority of 50% plus 1 vote to run. This race is definitely headed for a run off just like the 2017 race. Lifteveryvoice ( talk) 03:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Again, there is no primary for the Atlanta mayoral election. Lifteveryvoice ( talk) 03:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
The Results table should go up after the votes are counted from the general election. Lifteveryvoice ( talk) 03:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
This entire exchange has been exhausting and made even more so by the condescension from that other person. Some of us who live in Atlanta deal with the very real effects of (Redacted) these front runners. The lols is not appreciated when I know from actual journalists how limited they are in reporting what’s going on. Lifteveryvoice ( talk) 03:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Page Unprotected. Now that there's a dialogue of a factual nature (which I've largely lost the thread of), I think a resolution is within reach (if not reached). El_C 03:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Lifteveryvoice, are the candidates in the infobox not the leading candidates? Also, you said someone was: making sure women candidates have the worst pictures
, but all I see is
Felicia Moore, and the picture is from her article. Further, you prefaced that with: Someone has been deliberately screwing with this page from Day 1
. Who? If that's the case, I'm prepared to take decisive action, but I need proof (evidence in the from of
WP:DIFFs). Thank you.
El_C 00:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
vandalism( diff), so this is quite a strange brew, either way. El_C 01:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
So I can’t be new? And someone else can joyfully jack a page with no oversight because they’ve been here longer?
Whatever. Lifteveryvoice ( talk) 01:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Seems like this Bottleofchocolatemilk is spoiled and is wreaking havoc with local election pages. Lifteveryvoice ( talk) 01:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Collapsing for readability.
El_C 03:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
|
---|
This individual has basically been doing this for a week, just making a bunch of destructive edits and justifying them with vague platitudes about "discrimination," "disinformation," et cetera. They seem to be under the impression that any Wikipedia edit which even marginally reduces the visibility of a certain candidate actually has an effect on the election in question and could potentially make that candidate lose the election which makes no sense. They've gone so far as to claim that leaving some candidates out of the infobox could cause those candidates to lose the election. It should go without saying that Wikipedia's job is to catalogue the events of the election, and minute details like this have no bearing on the outcome of the election. Their main war has been against the "Qualified" and "Did not qualify" sections, and it seems like they're trying to argue that we shouldn't distinguish between which candidates are and are not on the ballot because that's "disinformation" or something. In the past couple days they've really been ramping it up, the most laughable example being when they removed the results table and gave some excuse about it being "discriminatory" because not every candidate is on the ballot. As justification for removing it, they claimed that the 2017 Atlanta mayoral page doesn't have one (it does) even though 99.9% of Wikipedia elections articles have them (this again should go without saying, but listing the results of an election is not discriminating against certain candidates who weren't on the ballot). They are also just saying a bunch of crazy stuff, like seriously accusing me of working for Kasim Reed's campaign. If you don't believe me just look back at the last few edit summaries and see for yourself. And the craziest part is, that might actually be projection. Take a look at these two Commons images, which I'll call Exhibit A and Exhibit B. Both are pictures of Raina Bell-Saunders, a candidate in this mayoral election. Both were uploaded by Lifteveryvoice, both are tagged as "Own work," and the Volunteer Response Team apparently verified that "the copyright holder has approved publication" of both images. These are the only pictures of Bell-Saunders on Commons. Based on this (among other things which I'll get into later), I believe that Lifteveryvoice is either Bell-Saunders or someone associated with her (note that it is against Wikipedia rules for someone with a close connection to something to make major edits to that thing's Wikipedia page). Think about it: the Volunteer Response Team has verified that Lifteveryvoice *owns* both of these pictures. How would that be possible unless Lifteveryvoice was Bell-Saunders or someone close to her? It's not as though these are candid pictures, which could have been taken by Lifteveryvoice at an event of some sort; they are clearly posed portraits, meaning that Bell-Saunders knows the person behind the camera (assuming she wasn't the one who took the pictures). Also, pretty much every single edit made by Lifteveryvoice was directed towards elevating the lesser-known candidates who didn't appear on the ballot (deleting the leading candidates from the infobox, deleting the results table, insisting that no distinction be made between which candidates are and are not on the ballot) of which Bell-Saunders is one. But if that's not enough for you, there's more. Take a look at these tweets from Raina Bell-Saunders's official account: Exhibit C, Exhibit D, Exhibit E, Exhibit F, Exhibit G, Exhibit H. Seems like somebody sure is very invested in her representation on Wikipedia. She's being very dramatic about how she's represented on Wikipedia, which is line with Lifteveryvoice's overdramatic postulations about how putting someone in a different section on a Wikipedia page is "discrimination" and "disinformation." Exhibit F is the best example of this; she makes it sound as though her Wikipedia picture is of direct relevance to the campaign. Exhibits D and E show that she has had direct contact with people at Wikipedia at some point; remember that Lifteveryvoice had contact with members of the Volunteer Response Team in order to verify that they owned Exhibits A and B. In Exhibit G, she warns Felicia Moore that her picture was changed and implies that this was malicious (Moore's picture was only changed because the original was deleted from Commons); recall Lifteveryvoice's claim that someone was "making sure women candidates have the worst pictures." In Exhibits G and H, she claims that the person behind these "malicious" edits was associated with a campaign; recall that Lifteveryvoice directly accused me of working for the Reed campaign and note that Bell-Saunders isn't exactly a very big fan of Reed and now supports Moore. But the biggest smoking gun is Exhbit I ( https://twitter. com/search?q=from%3ARainaBSaunders%20%23lifteveryvoice&src=typed_query&f=live Wikipedia doesn't allow Twitter search links, so just remove the space and then paste it in). Yep, this is a laundry list of tweets from Bell-Saunders containing #lifteveryvoice, Lifteveryvoice's username. Could it be a coincidence? Absolutely, "Lift Every Voice and Sing" is basically the national anthem for African-Americans. Or maybe this proves that Bell-Saunders is Lifteveryvoice. I'll let you be the judge. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 01:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC) |
So I can’t find someone’s hashtag a catchy username without it raising a conflict of interest thing? This is serious deflection from the “work” Bottleofchocolatemilk is doing on other local election pages. Lifteveryvoice ( talk) 02:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
By stating candidates aren’t “qualified” bottleofchocolatemilk is claiming those campaigns have stopped which is not true. Why else add a parenthetical that Raina Bell-Saunders qualified as a write-in, then throw her in the “Unqualified” group?
The fact is unless bottleofchocolatemilk is working for another campaign, City Hall, or even the State of Georgia, that person has no idea what is going on with the legal process of qualification. Lifteveryvoice ( talk) 02:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
There is no such thing as “non-qualified” candidates. Write In Candidates qualify during qualification week the same as paying candidates. Lifteveryvoice ( talk) 02:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
@c.Fred please see my outside note to qualified candidates. All candidates, write in or not, are qualified candidates. Being a check box on a ballot screen or having a voter type in a name requires the same process of qualification Lifteveryvoice ( talk) 02:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Polling is not an adequate test of candidate viability nor is an infobox is needed outside of presenting one set of candidates as “better” than others which is what this is really about. Bottleofchocolatemilk needs to disclose their own interests in the Atlanta race since they are all about disclosing information. Lifteveryvoice ( talk) 02:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
The AJC is a good source, even if it leaves write ins at a disadvantage. This is a better option than giving people the impression there are only six “real” candidates who magically qualified when all the candidates went through the qualification process. Lifteveryvoice ( talk) 02:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Write ins fill out a notification with City Hall per the qualifying statute. This is not disclosed on a ballot. Alex Barrella qualified as a write in per is Twitter Feed. Not sure about Devonta Sullivan. Lifteveryvoice ( talk) 02:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
The municipal and state elections code does not make distinctions in how a candidate qualified. Candidates have 3 ways to qualify (pay up, collect signatures, write in).
The distinction has been exploited in Atlanta to make the candidates with money seem /more/ legitimate by pre-printing their name on a ballot. There is no primary and all candidates run as non-partisan. Really it’s an exploitative move geared to let the candidate who takes in the most money the automatic front runner, (Redacted). Lifteveryvoice ( talk) 02:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
C Fred’s compromise is fair. The Write Ins are already at a disadvantage from lack of exposure but including them in a separate category is more fair than claiming they did not qualify at all.
FYI, I’ve reviewed the Bell-Saunders feed and it looks like she withdrew per the bio. Lifteveryvoice ( talk) 02:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
/Twitter feed & bio shows Raina Bell-Saunders withdrew. She needs to go in the same category as Keisha Lance-Bottoms. Lifteveryvoice ( talk) 02:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Her personal Facebook page has a public post from August 25 where she says she has withdrawn. Lifteveryvoice ( talk) 03:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
All this is a lot if work when none of the 14+ candidates will get a majority of 50% plus 1 vote to run. This race is definitely headed for a run off just like the 2017 race. Lifteveryvoice ( talk) 03:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Again, there is no primary for the Atlanta mayoral election. Lifteveryvoice ( talk) 03:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
The Results table should go up after the votes are counted from the general election. Lifteveryvoice ( talk) 03:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
This entire exchange has been exhausting and made even more so by the condescension from that other person. Some of us who live in Atlanta deal with the very real effects of (Redacted) these front runners. The lols is not appreciated when I know from actual journalists how limited they are in reporting what’s going on. Lifteveryvoice ( talk) 03:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Page Unprotected. Now that there's a dialogue of a factual nature (which I've largely lost the thread of), I think a resolution is within reach (if not reached). El_C 03:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)