Jump to content

Talk:2021 Atlanta mayoral election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

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)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

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)[reply]

Candidates infobox

[edit]

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)[reply]

Please check the Talk page and the history of edits. Bottleofchocolatemilk has been behind the changes, including designating other candidates as having ‘failed to qualify’ when they did. Alex Barrella is also a write in candidate who qualified but he was listed among the ‘failures’ which is why I removed the designation altogether.
Felicia has had more than one picture and the current one is the most unflattering yet. Sharon Gay, another female candidate, has no picture at all. Bottleofchocolatemilk got the picture of the other lady, Raina Bell-Saunders, deleted.
Atlanta does not have primaries; all the candidates are non-partisan so the info box is unnecessary and misleading.
Bottleofchocolatemilk originally had the pictograph using unprofessional selfies for all candidates except Kasim Reed and has been the self-designated gatekeeper for this page. I strongly suspect this person is part of a campaign because this page has never gotten this much attention.
The race down here is quite dirty with all kinds of shenanigans taking place on a daily basis. There’s no need for it to spill over onto the Wikipedia page.
Lifteveryvoice (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of transparency, Lifteveryvoice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has only edited pages related to this election, including the draft page of one candidate. —C.Fred (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is not adding up for me. No diffs, as requested, either. El_C 01:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, C.Fred, I just noticed in passing that the other user, BottleOfChocolateMilk (ping), just reverted a sitting Arb last week, with the reasoning cited being vandalism (diff), so this is quite a strange brew, either way. El_C 01:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the last time, I have no connection to the Reed campaign. The only reason that Reed's picture is better than the others is because he's the only one who has a high-resolution picture on Wikimedia Commons. Wikipedia can only use pictures that are in the public domain. The reason I filed a deletion request on the picture of Raina Bell-Saunders is because when you uploaded it you marked it as "own work" and offered no proof that it was your own. I have done editing on a lot of Wikipedia election articles (more proof I don't work for Kasim Reed's campaign) and typically when somebody uploads a picture of a candidate with no evidence of permission, they either downloaded it from Google Images or they work for the campaign and it's a publicity still that is not in the public domain. I assumed that was the case here and I was wrong. Felicia Moore's original picture was deleted because it was an example of what I just talked about; somebody got it from Google Images and posted it despite not having permission. Her current picture is from a YouTube video that was posted with a Creative Commons license. And as for Sharon Gay, she has no pictures whatsoever in the public domain, there aren't even any Creative Commons YouTube videos with her in them. None of this is "discrimination," it's just Wikipedia following copyright law. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also Walter Reeves and Antonio Brown are men and they don't have pictures either so really your argument makes no sense. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Seems like this Bottleofchocolatemilk is spoiled and is wreaking havoc with local election pages. Lifteveryvoice (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can be new, I assure you! El_C 01:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lifteveryvoice, you do realize that your version (not theirs) is the one that's currently protected (at the highest protection level available), right? El_C 01:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not. I’m still having a hard enough time reading the coding lol. I apologize, I’m beyond frustrated. I know a few of the candidates from social media and from being friends with journalists who talk shop in front of me. Lifteveryvoice (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Lifteveryvoice, breath easy. I'm confident we'll get it sorted soon. El_C 01:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsing for readability. El_C 03:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

BottleOfChocolateMilk, please condense. Your note is so lengthy it is effectively a form of filibustering. El_C 01:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "condense" but sure I can give a summary. Basically this person has just been making a bunch of changes and not giving good reasons. Just scroll back and look at their edits and the summaries to see what I mean. The bulk of my message was comprised of evidence that Lifteveryvoice is actually a candidate in this race named Raina Bell-Saunders or someone associated with her. Even if they have no connection to this candidate their edits are still not good, and they throw around accusations of "discrimination" and "disinformation" without a good reason. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Twitter account in question is not verified, so we cannot say that it in fact represents the person it purports to. However, it is obviously involved in editing here. The username issue raises the appearance of a conflict of interest; whether the editor here is the Twitter account owner or acting at their direction is not important (unless a paid editing disclosure were necessary). —C.Fred (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heaven forbid we try to get all candidates on equal footing as represented by the law! Lifteveryvoice (talk) 02:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just said above that I knew candidates from social media and from the journalists I’m friends with! But nice try deflecting from your own mess. The only thing that is obvious is you aren’t really interested in anything except elevating candidates who have the budget to afford someone like you. Lifteveryvoice (talk) 02:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How did you get ownership of those pictures of her or permission to use them, then? Why is your username a hashtag that she frequently uses? How close are you with her? Have the two of you talked about Wikipedia? Is that why you have strikingly similar opinions on this entire thing? And most importantly: do you have any actual evidence that I am affiliated with Reed's campaign, or any campaign for that matter? Also: what "law" dictates how to cover candidates on Wikipedia? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how that first pictorial showed up with Reed’s picture as the first candidate and all the other pictures were blurry selfies. Maybe that’s why you mocked me for suggesting you were part of his campaign? And got huffy when I added the citations about his grand jury summons? If people are looking at this page for information, it would be helpful to know two candidates are indicted and/or darned near indicted? Lifteveryvoice (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lifteveryvoice, I already explained this above. Kasim Reed is the only candidate with a high-quality picture in the public domain. And I don't have a problem with mentioning his indictment or Antonio Brown's, it's just that that would need to go in a separate "Background" section as I've never seen a Wikipedia page list stuff like that next to a candidate's name. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lifteveryvoice, BottleOfChocolateMilk, you're writing too fast! Anyway, I'm not from America, so I don't know a lot about American mayoral elections. I'm not sure about the weight of qualifications (whatever that means). At a glance, there does not seem to be consistency on Wikipedia wrt having or not having these on a candidates' infobox pre-election. So, for example, it's there for the 2021 New York City mayoral election page, but not for the 2021 Cleveland mayoral election one. Hmm. El_C 02:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would be willing to remove the candidates from the infobox entirely pre-primary. Like you said there's never really been a consensus (though I will point out that when it is done it's based on who is averaging 5% or above in polls, not "discrimination" like this person claims). BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: In this situation, a "qualified" candidate will appear on the printed ballots and/or the election machine screens during the election; a voter can vote for them by just checking their box. Non-qualified candidates run as "write-in" candidates: for a voter to cast a vote for them, they must go to the blank line and write in the candidate's name. —C.Fred (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Fred: So it seems like maybe the best solution would be three sections: "on ballot," "qualified write-in candidates," and "did not file?" We definitely need to have *some* distinctions between on-ballot and write-in candidates, despite what Lifteveryvoice argues. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BottleOfChocolateMilk: The 5% polling threshold for the infobox is certainly the case in partisan races; minor-party candidates need to hit that threshold to be placed in the infobox. I'm not sure if it also is used in situations like this, but if it were, it looks like six candidates would be listed. —C.Fred (talk) 02:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Fred:Yep, that's the way it was before Lifteveryvoice objected. There were 6 in the infobox: Moore, Reed, Dickens, Brown, Gay, and Reeves. Again, I'm willing to get rid of it entirely if that's what the consensus ends up being. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm sorry but I just find it suspicious that you would just so happen to use her hashtag as your Wikipedia username *in addition to* parroting her claims about sexism *and* accusing editors here of working for Reed just like she did *and* making the same complaints about this page as her. And ALSO you still have yet to explain how you got permission to use those pictures. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Lifteveryvoice: It would be reasonable, IMO, to group the candidates into "on the ballot" and "write-in". —C.Fred (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes but not everyone listed on this page filed to run as a write-in. As far as I can tell, the only person with a reliable source saying they filed to run as a write-in would be Raina Bell-Saunders. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Do you seriously not see the benefit in distinguishing between which candidates are and are not listed on the ballot? Because there is a big difference. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lifteveryvoice: So, are you saying to cut the list down to the 14 candidates that did qualify, per the AJC? [1] —C.Fred (talk) 02:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Lifteveryvoice: Do you have any evidence that I'm associated with any campaign, aside from the thing about Kasim Reed's picture, which I have explained like three times now? Here, I'll do it one more time: The only reason that Reed's picture is better than the others is because he's the only one who has a high-resolution picture on Wikimedia Commons. Wikipedia can only use pictures that are in the public domain. The reason I filed a deletion request on the picture of Raina Bell-Saunders is because when you uploaded it you marked it as "own work" and offered no proof that it was your own. I have done editing on a lot of Wikipedia election articles (more proof I don't work for Kasim Reed's campaign) and typically when somebody uploads a picture of a candidate with no evidence of permission, they either downloaded it from Google Images or they work for the campaign and it's a publicity still that is not in the public domain. I assumed that was the case here and I was wrong. Felicia Moore's original picture was deleted because it was an example of what I just talked about; somebody got it from Google Images and posted it despite not having permission. Her current picture is from a YouTube video that was posted with a Creative Commons license. And as for Sharon Gay, she has no pictures whatsoever in the public domain, there aren't even any Creative Commons YouTube videos with her in them. None of this is "discrimination," it's just Wikipedia following copyright law, and I DO NOT WORK FOR KASIM REED. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Lifteveryvoice: So do you still object to separating the candidates based on who is and isn't on the ballot? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • The list of fourteen qualified candidates, per AJC: Antonio Brown, Andre Dickens, Kirsten Dunn, Nolan English, Sharon Gay, Mark Hammad, Kenny Hill, Rebecca L King, Felicia Moore, Kasim Reed, Walter Reeves, Roosevelt Searles III, Glenn S. Wrightson, and Richard N Wright. —C.Fred (talk) 02:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are also only two candidates showing as write-ins, per the city council: Henry Anderson and Brandon Adkins.[2] —C.Fred (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

/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)[reply]

@Lifteveryvoice: The feed asserted to belong to "Bell Saunders" (sic) is not verified, so it does not qualify as a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Bell-Saunders campaign website shows no indication of a withdrawal.[3] —C.Fred (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lifteveryvoice: @C.Fred: @El C: Great, sounds perfect. Kill the infobox until after the primary, separate the candidates into "on ballot," "qualified write-in," and "did not file," use reliable sources only to determine who has & hasn't withdrawn and who did & didn't file to run as a write-in. @Lifteveryvoice: hasn't mentioned their claim about the results table being "deliberately discriminatory" (lol) in a while so I think they dropped that complaint. Done? Consensus? Can we all move on with our lives? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BottleOfChocolateMilk: You mean until after the general election? There is no primary in this race. (Only the election of presidential electors is first-past-the-post; all other elections in Georgia require a 50% + 1 majority in the general election to be declared winner, and there is a runoff between the top two candidates if nobody gets that majority. I'm technically looking into a crystal ball, but I fully expect a runoff election.) —C.Fred (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Fred: Yes, that was what I meant. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Again, there is no primary for the Atlanta mayoral election. Lifteveryvoice (talk) 03:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Results table should go up after the votes are counted from the general election. Lifteveryvoice (talk) 03:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Lifteveryvoice, when all else fails, WP:HELP. Anyway, Americomplictaed. In Israel's there's one mayoral election law for the entire country. Also, one police force for the entire country. Then again, Atlanta alone is over half the country's population. But I'm rambling. WP:PING or drop me a note on my talk page (here) if you require further assistance. Otherwise, good luck! El_C 04:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected

[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_Atlanta_mayoral_election&oldid=1212745697"