Talk:2016 United States Senate election in South Dakota: Difference between revisions

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. U.S. Congress This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress 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.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", or "Events". Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles Politics 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Hi. I'm Kurt Evans, a former candidate for this office. I know very little about Wikipedia protocol, and I'd appreciate it if someone who knows more would contact me at Kurt.Evans@live.com so we can correspond by email. Among other things, I'd like to discuss the actions of users "ALPolitico" and "Dane2007" pertaining to this article.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.248.92 (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@216.249.248.92: Hello Kurt - Welcome to Wikipedia. It is helpful if you share your concerns here on the talk page as Wikipedia uses conensus for contested changes. If you share your concerns here it allows other users to give input and they may agree with you. Also, your disclosure that you were a former candidate for this office may present a conflict of interest, so while not required I would say it is recommended for any changes to be reviewed to ensure they maintain a neutral point of view. Thank you for taking your time to express your concerns. -- Dane2007 ^talk 19:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I've never "Declared" for this office except pending a ballot-access lawsuit. What's your rationale for moving the reference to the lawsuit into my biographical information? Also, what's your rationale for removing information about my past campaigns and what kind of teacher I am? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.246.80 (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@216.249.248.92: I have cleaned up the article a bit. After re-reviewing the edits and the layout of other candidates, I have reformatted and put back in most of the information you had contributed before. I have worded it to be more neutral (basically to match the way other candidates are listed) and I added a note about the declaration pending the ballot access lawsuit. -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to offend you, but I really don't see how you could consider this an improvement, either in terms of information or in terms of aesthetics. Now it looks like my party affiliation is contingent on the lawsuit. It also looks like I was an independent candidate in 2002 and 2014 (I wasn't), and excluding the hypertext links to other Wikipedia articles, there's no documentation of my candidacy in either of those two races. Writing my biographical information into a complete sentence is inconsistent with the rest of the article, and you haven't told me your rationale for removing information about what kind of teacher I am. Bonus trivia: The reference numbers within the text of the article should be placed after, not before, any form of punctuation except an em dash.

And as the final punch line, I haven't been an officially recognized candidate for this office since 2002. I came here today to update the page because we lost the lawsuit, only to find that "ALPolitico" (whose mother apparently dropped him on his head when he was a baby) had gotten my editing privileges blocked. Please file some kind of complaint against him on my behalf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.246.80 (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I found a reference that states that the case is declined, i've just removed the information. I removed what type of teacher you are on the basis that it doesn't add any due weight based on the sources. -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's much better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.246.80 (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is Kurt Evans again. I see "ALPolitico" (who got my editing privileges here blocked) has come back and reinserted his double-standard subjective editorializing into my biographical information. I'd really appreciate it if someone would tell me how to file a formal complaint against him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.246.254 (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt, I have removed the comment about being a "perennial" candidate, as it is not supported by the cited sources, and in any case does not seem very relevant in this article, and could even be seen as a derogatory comment. Do you object to the rest of the content that ALPolitico added? As far as I can see it's just a factual statement which is publicly known, but if you do have an objection (other than that you just don't like it) then you should explain what your objection is. Bear in mind, though, that when you put yourself forward for election to public office, you are thrusting yourself into the public eye, and once you have done so you cannot expect that only those facts about yourself which you would like publicised will receive public attention. If you wish to make a "formal complaint" about ALPolitico, you can do so at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but before deciding to do so you should make sure that you really do have grounds for claiming that ALPolitico has acted unreasonably, not simply done things which you personally disagree with. Also, you should be aware that any report at an Administrators' noticeboard will result in all aspects of the disputed issue to be examined, including your own actions. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I'm not sure how the phrase "perennial candidate" is understood in other places. Here in South Dakota it's definitely considered derogatory, but that's beside the point. The point is that, even according to the Wikipedia article "ALPolitico" linked, it's subjective: a political candidate who "frequently" runs for office but "seldom" wins. I'm a 46-year-old man who's been on the ballot three times over the past 20 years, in 1996, 2002 and 2014. Rick Weiland, the former candidate listed directly above me in the article, was on the ballot in exactly the same three years, but "ALPolitico" doesn't seem compelled to remove any of Weiland's biographical information. The phrase "Failed to Qualify" produces a milder objection. I offered myself for nomination contingent on a ballot-access lawsuit the state Constitution Party already had in progress. I've never been a party to that lawsuit or had any control over its outcome, and I've never intended to campaign under the Constitution Party's banner unless the lawsuit was successful. I'm not sure what the solution is here, but I'm content to leave the article as-is unless someone comes up with a better idea. For the record, I'm perfectly happy to have my own actions here examined, as I've given detailed and reasonable explanations for each of my edits. "ALPolitico" simply removed factual information, over and over, initially with no explanation whatsoever. Thanks again for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.248.107 (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you're so bitter, Kurt. The personal insults directed at me certainly won't help your case in regards to a formal complaint, especially as I've done nothing wrong. I disagree that you are not a perennial candidate, but, with your campaigns so spread out, one could make the argument that you are not, so I won't be adding it back in. The term does not, in and of itself, have a negative connotation, but some may admittedly see it that way; regardless, that alone would not have any sway one way or the other towards putting such a designation in an article. Furthermore, I did nothing to "your editing privileges." I made a formal request for semi-protection for the article (meaning that unregistered users cannot edit it) because you consistently added irrelevant information in an incorrect format to the article. ALPolitico (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified my occupation ("high school math and science teacher"). My three previous campaigns had been placed in the article by someone else. If it had been up to me, they wouldn't have been, but I didn't have a rationale to justify removing them, so I provided documentation instead. Then you went and got "semi-protection" on the supposed grounds that I was self-promoting. Well, yeah, if you define "self-promoting" as preferring accurate factual information to derogatory labels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.248.107 (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The justification for my request for semi-protection, which was approved, was you repeatedly utilizing inconsistent and incorrect formatting, although I did speculate as to your reasons for doing so in my request. Regardless, this issue seems to be resolved as best as it can be, and I won't be commenting further. You are not the first candidate for public office to become angry with me regarding formatting and facts on Wikipedia, and I sincerely doubt you will be the last. ALPolitico (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's disappointing that you won't explain what "formatting" you mean, because to the best of my recollection, I've never changed any formatting. The person who approved your request for semi-protection admitted to me that he isn't a U.S. citizen and has essentially no understanding of U.S. politics. I'm not surprised that other candidates have become angry with you, or that you expect others to become angry with you in the future. You seem to be a perennial egomaniac. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.248.107 (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is Kurt Evans again. The Constitution Party of South Dakota has been in ongoing ballot-access litigation against the state for more than a year. I'm not involved in that litigation and wasn't even a member of the party when it began. It appeared the party might have an opportunity to run a candidate in this race if federal district judge Karen Schreier were to approve a motion for injunction. At the state party convention on July 9, the party nominated me to become its candidate in the event that such a motion were approved.

In late July, user "ALPolitico" began making a series of misleading edits to this article, including falsely listing me as a declared candidate, arbitrarily removing factual information and references about me (and not about anyone else in the article), and repeatedly applying the derogatory label "perennial candidate" to me (and not to anyone else in the article). When I tried to correct the misleading information, "ALPolitico" accused me of disruptive editing based on "inconsistent and incorrect formatting" (see "Second request for assistance" above) and falsely suggested that I was attempting to "advertise" my "supposed qualifications" for office (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Rolling_archive&oldid=734584830). The article was semi-protected for one week, during which the most egregious edits by "ALPolitico" were corrected by other registered users.

After Judge Schreier had finally rejected motions for injunction and reconsideration on August 31, I updated the article and its references to reflect the fact that the party had been denied ballot access. Now "ALPolitico" is repeatedly insisting that I "Failed to Qualify" despite my clear, direct, repeated explanations that I never agreed to become the Constitution Party's candidate unless Judge Schreier approved its motion for ballot access, much less attempted to qualify as a candidate in this race. Given Judge Schreier's ruling, there's absolutely no way anyone nominated at the state party convention could have possibly qualified as a candidate for this office.

Now "ALPolitico" has accused me even more vaguely of "nonconstructive edits" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Rolling_archive&oldid=740955940), resulting in the article being semi-protected for three weeks. Perhaps worse, the explanation for his most recent edit states that party members "are entangled in litigation" attempting to get me on the ballot, and he's removed the reference to a Dakota Free Press article about the judge's final August 31 ruling, creating the false impression that the party is still fighting to place me on the ballot.

It would be a huge help to me if someone more familiar with Wikipedia protocol would let me know whether there's a grievance process that might prevent "ALPolitico" from making further misleading changes to this article, and exactly how I'd go about setting that process in motion. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.248.75 (talk) 07:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the reference to the August 15 Ballot Access News article (reinserted by "ALPolitico" after I'd removed it) also contains outdated and misleading information. The best solution here, for the reasons explained above, would be to simply undo his last edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.248.75 (talk) 07:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see "ALPolitico" has come back and added a reference, claiming he "found" the exact court ruling in which the Constitution Party was denied ballot access by Judge Schreier. Predictably, his "finding" doesn't motivate him to put back the information he removed from the article about the party being denied ballot access when its motions for injunction and reconsideration were rejected by Judge Schreier. Equally predictably, "ALPolitico" neglects to mention that he "found" the link in the Dakota Free Press article I'd posted as a reference before, which he arbitrarily removed for no stated reason. (The new reference is also hosted by Dakota Free Press, which now isn't properly credited for it.)

Once again, I'd like to request that someone more familiar with Wikipedia protocol would let me know whether there's a grievance process that might prevent "ALPolitico" from making further misleading changes to this article, and exactly how I'd go about setting that process in motion. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.252.30 (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(1) As I've repeatedly explained in the sections above, I never declared as the Constitution Party's candidate for this office, much less attempted to qualify for the ballot. From the beginning, my potential candidacy was contingent on the state party's already-pending ballot-access lawsuit. I wasn't involved in the litigation, had no control over its outcome and and wasn't even a member of the party when it began. The Constitution Party was denied ballot access when federal district judge Karen Schreier rejected the state party's motions to allow a U.S. Senate candidacy. There's no way that I, or anyone else nominated at the state party convention, could have possibly qualified as a candidate for this office. (2) Contrary to previous expectations, I didn't go back to teaching this fall and haven't taught since before I rejoined the Constitution Party. In any case, considering the fact that the party's motions to allow my candidacy were rejected by Judge Schreier, my occupation has little if any relevance to this article. (3) The August 15 Ballot Access News article cited as a reference contained outdated and misleading information, as the final status of a potential U.S. Senate candidacy hadn't yet been determined at that time. (4) As explained above (see "Fourth request for assistance"), the reference to court documents supposedly "found" by user "ALPolitico" was an uncredited sub-link from the September 8 Dakota Free Press article I'd posted as a reference before, which he'd arbitrarily removed for no stated reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.253.40 (talk) 04:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@216.249.255.181: Hello. I see you corresponded with Ymblanter regarding this issue. As you are the articles subject and this has gone back and forth, I restored what is considered the "stable version" of the article based on citations. While you may disagree and or argue other points as stated in your above posts, there are concerns of possible legal ramifications. This has moved to something that needs to be dealt with in a different manner. There are multiple processes that could be used for this situation, but I am going to refer you to the process that I feel will be most helpful...please see this information on how to submit a request to the appropriate ticketing system. This will route your dispute and information to a highly experienced team who will be able to further address your concerns and decide what outcome is appropriate. Thanks. -- Dane2007 ^talk 03:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Everyone I've contacted about the situation has referred me to a different process. In fact it was "Ymblanter" who assured me (more than two months ago) that someone would follow up if I raised my points on this talk page, but no one ever has unless I directly contacted that person myself. What citations make the "stable version" of the article the version that includes the false and misleading information repeatedly inserted by "ALPolitico"? Shouldn't the fact that he refuses to even attempt to discuss his edits here give me the benefit of the doubt? Are you saying there's some kind of Wikipedia rule that prevents you from making the corrections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.255.181 (talk) 06:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently both of the editors who've repeatedly reinserted false and misleading information about me into this article—and gotten "semi-protection" applied to prevent me from correcting that information—are now giving me the silent treatment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dane2007#South_Dakota_Senate_Election

Wikipedia seems to be a truly horrible place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.244.94 (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to United States Senate election in South Dakota, 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

http://kelo.com/news/articles/2016/nov/01/poll-trump-thune-noem-maintain-leads-in-sd/ New poll from Nielson Brothers. Please can someone put this into the 'polling section?' Thanks!!

86.152.243.70 (talk) 03:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by Ehlla. -- Dane2007 ^talk 15:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On November 19, user "ALPolitico" requested indefinite semi-protection for this article saying, "An individual who was nominated by the Constitution Party, which failed to obtain ballot access, has repeatedly engaged in unconstructive edits to this article since the summer."

On November 20, user HJ Mitchell declined that request saying, "Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection."

Later on November 20, user "Dane2007" wrote to HJ Mitchell, "Please review the history on this article again. The disruptive activity on this article has been frequent and regular throughout the summer and it started again right when the last protection fell off of the article. The talk page has relevant information about the IP user and their WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior."

The above conversation is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Rolling_archive&oldid=750632481#20_November_2016

On November 22, user "Dane2007" made another request for indefinite semi-protection: "Persistent disruptive editing – Persistent disruptive edit warring by IPs since the summer. This is WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior. User has been instructed to follow the correct processes and does not do so."

Later on November 22, "Cyberbot I" posted the following automated comment: "A request for protection/unprotection for one or more pages in this request was recently made, and was denied at some point within the last 8 days."

Still later on November 22, I added the following comment under the new request for semi-protection: "I'm Kurt Evans, the 2002 U.S. Senate candidate that users 'ALPolitico' and 'Dane2007' have repeatedly accused of disruptive editing. As I've repeatedly explained on the article's 'Talk' page, I never declared as a Constitution Party candidate for this office, nor was I ever legally recognized as such. My edits are primarily to correct false and misleading information, while both 'ALPolitico' and 'Dane2007' refuse to discuss the reasons for their edits. From my perspective it seems that they're the ones engaging in disruptive edit-warring and 'I-don't-like-it' behavior."

Those last three comments are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=751015714#United_States_Senate_election_in_South_Dakota.2C_2016