Talk:2016 United States Senate election in South Dakota

Request for assistance

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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

Second request for assistance

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Third request for assistance

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)

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)

Fourth request for assistance

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)

Explanation for October 17 edit

(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)

@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)

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)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2016

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)

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

Documenting the actions of users "ALPolitico" and "Dane2007"

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.252.72 (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding this. The thread is Disruptive editing and BLP accusations with United States Senate election in South Dakota, 2016. Thank you. -- Dane2007 ^talk 05:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Should Kurt Evans be listed as "Failed to Qualify"?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

In considering the status of a Request for Comments on a contentious issue, the closer needs to take into account not only the views expressed by the participants but also whether those views comport with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The exercise is not merely one of counting heads; for this reason we refer to views expressed in such discussions as “!votes” or “not votes.”

This RfC attracted a lot of text but relatively few distinct editors and very few concrete wordings. No alternative wording attracted serious support.

Although Wikipedia tries to consider the preference of BLP subjects when possible, that is secondary to providing a comprehensive, neutral encyclopedia with proper weight given to each topic addressed in an article. In the case of this RfC, the obvious most important policy is Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of Living People. That policy states any information in such articles: must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), No original research (NOR).

The views expressed by participants in this discussion and in the related Administrator's Noticeboard Incident discussion were evaluated in the context of these content policies.

The verifiable facts as presented in reliable sources are these: The State of South Dakota sets ballot access requirements that favor the two established major parties (the Democratic Party and the Republican Party). Two third parties (the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party) chose to challenge those laws in federal court. While this legal challenge was underway, the Constitution Party chose to nominate Kurt Evans as its candidate for United States Senator from South Dakota. Neither the party nor the candidate ever attempted to comply with the terms of the ballot access laws they challenged. The litigation closed without a decision in favor of the plaintiffs and Kurt Evans was not on the ballot.

The only way to close this RfC in line with both sources and policy, therefore, is not to use either “not qualified” or “denied.” There is no consensus for a particular wording. The policy on consensus says:

In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it.

No consensus was reached for how to discuss Kurt Evans. Because there is no consensus and this is a "contentious matte[r] related to living people", the "not qualified" or "denied" wording should not be restored.

Speaking as editors instead of closers, we believe that a simple and neutral way to describe this situation is to list the Constitution Party and Evans as "Did not gain ballot access", "Nominated but not listed on ballot", or an equivalent formulation. We recommend that editors consider our suggestions as a possible basis for further discussion and that editors follow the normal cycle of editing to reach consensus on an exact wording. To make it perfectly clear: this suggestion is editorial, not administrative. The normal cycle of editing can and should attempt to refine it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Countersigned.Tazerdadog (talk) 06:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Countersigned. Cunard (talk) 07:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Related Diffs: Contested Presentation in Article; AN/I prior to RfC

Should Kurt Evans be listed as "Failed to Qualify"?

• If Yes, does it need further explanation beyond the currently contested statement as formed by Dane2007 and ALPolitico? (see diff above)
• If No, how should Kurt Evans be listed?

Thanks! -- Dane ^talk 01:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose - This is 2002 U.S. Senate candidate Kurt Evans. In South Dakota a candidate for statewide office "qualifies" by submitting a required number of petition signatures to the secretary of state's office. To note that someone didn't "qualify" means that he or she declared as a candidate but didn't submit the required signatures. This carries the strongly negative connotation of someone who neglected to count the cost of a campaign and raised expectations he or she couldn't meet. In nearly 30 years of political activism, I don't remember hearing any other usage of the word "qualify" in this context.

That's nearly the opposite of what happened in the case at hand. I very deliberately refrained from declaring as a candidate because I understood that I couldn't be legally recognized as such unless federal district judge Karen Schreier approved the state party's motion to allow a U.S. Senate candidacy. Schreier explicitly rejected two such motions and thereby explicitly prevented anyone from becoming a Constitution Party candidate for the U.S. Senate. Judge Schreier's final August 31 ruling is explained in considerable detail in one of the sources that "ALPolitico" and "Dane2007" have repeatedly removed for no stated reason.

To say that I didn't "qualify" falsely suggests that it was possible for me to do so. There's nothing wrong with saying someone didn't "qualify" when he or she was unsuccessful in qualifying for an office, but there's something very wrong with suggesting someone was unsuccessful in qualifying for an office when he or she never attempted to qualify because circumstances beyond his or her control made doing so impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.253.21 (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

This is Kurt Evans again. I believe I should be listed as shown here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Senate_election_in_South_Dakota%2C_2016&type=revision&diff=750982726&oldid=750437690 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.253.21 (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - WP:LABEL guidance applies for subtitle, and this is poor for the criteria of recognizability, naturalness, precision, and lacks a deep precedent of consistency. It's needing a further explanation of what it means and it hasn't been in use over a long time so just seems bad idea to use it. WP:COMMONTERM would seem more like "Declared" the common English definition of someone who apples for a position or is nominated by their party, and 'nominated by their party' for a recognized party seems a WP:RS and to match the larger practice of each party and state gets to have their own mechanisms. In additional commentary -- If this was article text, then WP:NPOV would say show BOTH significant views in due weight of prominence, being encyclopedic about attributing the views and explaining. A simple Google shows 'denial' 3 times more than 'qualify', with the phrases 'failed to qualify' and 'denied ballot access' being less prominent and the other way. However, I do think this is an instance of broader WP:LABEL or recent wordgaming with 'denied access' being cast as 'failed to qualify', more noted in the oddities of who was included in recent Presidential debates, so I think the dispute itself should have content in this article, and that WP:LABEL could be applied. Markbassett (talk) 07:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - For all the bafflegab and word games that Kurt Evans is throwing out, it boils down to this:

• Kurt Evans tried to get on the ballot for the 2016 election.
• Kurt Evans failed.
• Therefore, Kurt Evans failed to qualify.

Kurt Evans's hurt feelings in the face of his failure to qualify are not Wikipedia's problem. --Calton | Talk 12:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Reliable Sources such as Washington Times article say he was a candidate.[1] It's well sourced, and we accurately accurately tell readers what the sources say. If Evans considers that to be some sort of defamation, he can sue the Washington Times. (edit: Or politely request they retract it.) If the newspapers retract those statements then we will happily update this article to match. However IMO that would be rather odd... whatever the details of the court case, it either resulted from, or resulted in, a failure to qualify. I believe that is the plain English meaning for ~100% of readers. Otherwise we would have a rather silly situation where no candidates ever fail to qualify because any (non write-in) candidacy is inherently "conditional" upon getting on the ballot. That's a circular wordgame.

Note: Ballot-access.org (Ballot Access News) is a wordpress blog, and dakotafreepress.com is also a blog. I don't see how either would be considered usable Reliable Sources. Those sources should be dropped/replaced, possibly with the Washingtontimes link above. I'm not sure if it's useful, but I also happened to came across South Dakota State Gov hosting the Constitution Party letter certifying him as their candidate.[2]

Regarding other aspects, I think it's unnecessary commentary to label him as a "perennial candidate" without any sourcing to attribute it to. I also think it's unnecessary to go into more detail than "teacher" and possibly previous election-cycle info, in line with the level of detail given for other individuals. Alsee (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Ballot Access News is definitely RS, the fact it's built on a WordPress platform doesn't mean much - Mashable is built on a WordPress platform. Ballot Access News is sourced by other RS (e.g. New York Times [3], Dallas Morning News [4], the BBC [5], LA Times [6], etc.) so we know, for that reason, it has limited RS when reporting on election-related issues. LavaBaron (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - use "Withdrew candidacy" per WP:COMMONTERM and WP:BLP. Brought here by the bot. Being a candidate is materially different than qualifying/not qualifying for ballot access and we can't use the fact RS name Evans as a candidate as synonymous with a qualification attempt. The reason we can't is because, in no other election article do we call a candidate who campaigns for office, but withdraws without attempting ballot access through the process set-out for access as "failing to qualify" (see, for example, the cases of Lincoln Chaffee, Jim Webb, etc. this year); rather, we indicate they withdrew. Ballotpedia [7], which has been held multiple times to be RS, says that ballot access in South Dakota (that is, qualifying for the ballot) involves two factors (a) filing a declaration of candidacy with the SoS, (b) remitting valid signatures by a party's registered voters. An "attempt" to qualify, therefore, as I understand it, would require that at least one of these steps be attempted but fail (as in, not self-aborted by the candidate). The sources stated indicate neither occurred, that Evans merely engaged in campaigning (and that this campaigning may have involved a court challenge against the qualifying standards) but ultimately decided not to attempt to qualify for the ballot, insofar as RS describe "qualification." He, therefore, withdrew his candidacy. Edit - based on a fuller explanation and reasoning offered by an IP editor, below, (and a re-review of the sources offered) I withdraw my suggestion for "withdrew candidacy." A single source, even if RS, that contains a one-sentence aside in a 72-word news brief can't be used to affirm someone was a candidate in the complete absence of any other secondary source. Even a third party candidate would have generated some supplementary acknowledgment in RS in South Dakota media, however minor. Also, per BLP - (a) we should avoid primary sources, such as the Constitution Party letter scan, and, (b) being identified as a failed political candidate is potentially deprecatory and should be included only if there is absolutely zero doubt the person was a candidate; there is no doubt that Jay Williams ran and lost, I think there's at least a modicum of reasonable doubt here that Evans was ever a candidate based on the total absence of any secondary RS except one very incidental aside in the Washington Times. (This was an AP report, for all we know it was later subject to a Withdraw notice by the AP and the Washington Times just didn't update their website in response, which is not unusual but could explain why it appears nowhere else. In the case of BLP we have to meet a high threshold of reasonable assurance.) LavaBaron (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
• Followup to previous response: Add three radio stations[8][9][10] also running news saying Kurt Evans was a candidate. And per WP:SELFSOURCE, on July 12 Kurt Evans himself posted his acceptance of nomination as a candidate on twitter kurtevans2016:

  Kurt Evans Retweeted

  Dakota Free Press ‏@dfpblog Jul 12

  Evans Accepts Constitutionist Nomination for US Senate...

That leads to http://dakotafreepress.com/2016/07/12/evans-accepts-constitutionist-nomination-for-us-senate-libertarians-convene-in-aberdeen-july-30/ which says Evans tells us that he is once again a candidate for United States Senate. Alsee (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Followup to previous followup: This is Kurt Evans. "Alsee" posts links to the websites of three radio stations, and each linked page displays the exact same Associated Press article to which he'd previously linked via the Washington Times above. As I've already explained in the "Discussion" section below, the AP article says the state party was "attempting" to put me on the ballot as a candidate and that Judge Schreier "denied" the request. The Associated Press article was entirely based upon—and directly sourced to—a KELO-TV article saying that I'd "sought to be" a U.S. Senate candidate, not that I'd been one.

"Alsee" is flat-out wrong when he accuses me of posting my "nomination as a candidate" on Twitter on July 12. I'd tweeted nothing about this matter between the convention and Judge Schreier's ruling. After the Constitution Party was denied ballot access in August, I went back through my Twitter "likes" and retweeted a few of them. The July 12 Dakota Free Press article cited by "Alsee" does mistakenly say I'd called myself a candidate, but it also links directly to my exact words: "I’ve been asked to try to keep some information out of the public domain for now, but I believe I’m welcome to confirm that I’m the Constitution Party nominee for the U.S. Senate." http://dakotafreepress.com/2016/07/11/constitution-party-nominees-need-court-win-to-make-ballot/#comment-51455

As I've been saying on this talk page since August 19, "I offered myself for nomination contingent on a ballot-access lawsuit the state Constitution Party already had in progress." As I further clarified here on September 25, "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." Even the July 12 Dakota Free Press article cited by "Alsee" explicitly says my nomination was conditional: "This nomination is extralegal and depends on the Constitution and Libertarian parties prevailing in a pending ballot access lawsuit."

It seems a little silly, but I'm planning to go ahead and request minor corrections from the Dakota Free Press and Ballot Access News websites. In the meantime, I'm wondering whether Wikipedia protocol allows "Alsee" to delete a previous time stamp when he appends one of his comments: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=754496207 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.224.182 (talk) 21:46 13 December 2016

(For the record, I'm not sure why SineBot didn't sign the above comment. —KE) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.224.182 (talk) 22:34 13 December 2016

• Followup regarding correction requests: This is Kurt Evans. The Ballot Access News website declined to modify the headline and URL of its July 10 article but revised the text itself to refer to me as a "potential" candidate (http://ballot-access.org/2016/07/10/south-dakota-constitution-party-uses-state-convention-to-nominate-candidates-that-normally-must-use-primary/). This afternoon (December 22) the Dakota Free Press website appended its July 11 article with a footnote explaining the Ballot Access News revision (http://dakotafreepress.com/2016/07/11/constitution-party-nominees-need-court-win-to-make-ballot/).

This week I'd also asked the author of the state party's July 11 press release (see AN/I) to add a brief explanation of the rulings under which the Constitution Party was denied ballot access. She apologized to me for not mentioning the legal battle in the original release and, for reasons I don't fully understand, opted to remove that post from the party's website in its entirety.

I intend to continue negotiating with the Dakota Free Press website and others for additional revisions, and I'm planning to note any such revisions in the discussion section below. — 216.249.246.162 (talk) 04:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:BLP requires biographies be written conservatively. There appear to be sufficient questions with the sources here, and conflicting reports in the minimal sources covering this, to require we err on the side of caution and not include Evans as a candidate. DarjeelingTea (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

This is Kurt Evans. For the record, I'm still open to the idea I'd suggested in the AN/I discussion of this article, specifically the possibility of replacing my listing with the following text: "In a previously pending ballot-access lawsuit, the Constitution Party of South Dakota filed two motions to allow 2002 Libertarian Party nominee Kurt Evans to become the Constitution Party's 2016 U.S. Senate candidate. Federal district judge Karen Schreier rejected the respective motions on August 15 and August 31." It seems to me that "Denied ballot access" would still be the most accurate subheader for the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.255.182 (talk) 04:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

This is Kurt Evans again, addressing the explanation by "Calton" for his vote above. (1) I had no influence over the state party's legal arguments or Judge Schreier's ruling. Whether I was allowed to become the Constitution Party's candidate was beyond my control. (2) "Calton" seems to be simply ignoring my comments about the meaning of the word "qualify" in this context. In South Dakota a candidate for statewide office "qualifies" by submitting a required number of petition signatures to the secretary of state's office. Saying someone didn't "qualify" means that he or she declared as a candidate but didn't submit the required signatures, which is nearly the opposite of what happened in the case at hand. (3) I didn't have "hurt feelings" when the Constitution Party was finally denied ballot access. I believe the ruling was unjust, but I was personally relieved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.250.64 (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

As a clarification to point #1 in the preceding comment, the ballot-access lawsuit had already been in progress for more than a year, and the state party's motions to allow a U.S. Senate candidacy were based on legal proceedings that took place before I'd even rejoined the party. —KE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.255.183 (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

This is Kurt Evans, now addressing the explanation by "Alsee" for his or her vote above. First off, thanks to "Alsee" for the time devoted to this matter, and especially for giving me a chance to address these points relatively early in this process. The first article cited by "Alsee" was written by the Associated Press, not by the Washington Times, and it was based entirely on an article posted to the KELO-TV website on August 15. The Times explicitly credits the AP, and the AP explicitly credits the KELO-TV source through a link in the body of the article. The original KELO-TV article was rife with inaccurate information, some (but not all) of which was subsequently revised and corrected. The revised version of the original article, as linked from the Washington Times website, is here: http://www.keloland.com/news/article/politics/judge-denies-injunction-for-constitution-party-candidates

Even the Associated Press article to which "Alsee" links says only that the state party was "attempting" to get U.S. Senate candidate Kurt Evans on the ballot and that Judge Schreier had "denied a request to order the Secretary of State to put two Constitution Party candidates on the November ballot." The state party's attempt to put me on the ballot as a candidate was unsuccessful. The original KELO-TV article says, "Evans sought to be a U.S. Senate candidate..." That statement is somewhat inaccurate from the standpoint that I hadn't actively "sought" to become a U.S. Senate candidate. I'd merely agreed to do so if Judge Schreier approved the state party's motion for ballot access. However, the KELO-TV statement does explicitly and correctly indicate that my potential candidacy was dependent upon the ballot-access lawsuit and that I hadn't yet become a candidate.

A larger problem with using either the KELO-TV article or the Associated Press article as a primary source is that both contain outdated and misleading information. As accurately reported in the Dakota Free Press article from September 8, the Constitution Party wasn't ultimately denied ballot access until August 31, more than two weeks after those August 15 articles were published.

"Alsee" appears to have taken the same approach as "Calton" by simply ignoring my comments about the meaning of the word "qualify" in this context. For ~100% of politically informed readers in South Dakota, saying someone didn't "qualify" means he or she declared as a candidate but didn't submit the required number of petition signatures to the secretary of state's office. I have no objection to saying someone didn't "qualify" under those circumstances, but it's nearly the opposite of what happened in the case at hand. The claim by "Alsee" that this is a "circular wordgame" isn't true, and it suggests some kind of misunderstanding.

Regarding credibility of sources, I wasn't trying to source to a Ballot Access News article, but the print version of that publication was available by paid subscription for many years before it was available online, and it still is: http://ballot-access.org/subscribe-to-ballot-access-news/

The Dakota Free Press website is probably South Dakota's most reliable source for in-state political news. It originated as a self-published blog but long since developed into a fully commercial venture financed through paid advertising: http://dakotafreepress.com/policies/advertising/

A possibly relevant point here is that the Dakota Free Press sources from August 18 and September 8 contain arguably the only accurate public reporting on the judicial decisions under which the Constitution Party was denied ballot access. I'd object to using the Washington Times link as a source for the reasons given above, but depending on how clearly the legal proceedings are described in the body of the article, I'm open to considering the Ballot Access News and KELO-TV articles from August 15 as additional sources.

"Alsee" also links to the state party's letter attempting to certify me as its U.S. Senate candidate. That attempt was explicitly and formally rejected by the attorney general and the secretary of state. The party had filed the letter on the advice of its attorneys while fully expecting it to be rejected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.245.75 (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

This is Kurt Evans, addressing the explanation by "LavaBaron" for his vote above. We obviously agree that saying I didn't "qualify" is misleading in this context, and we seem to essentially agree on the reasons, but I'm not sure where the assertion that I "engaged in campaigning (and that this campaigning may have involved a court challenge against the qualifying standards)" is supported by the sources. As I've previously noted above, the ballot-access lawsuit had already been in progress for more than a year, and the state party's motions to allow a U.S. Senate candidacy were based on legal proceedings that took place before I'd rejoined the party. Even after I'd rejoined the party, I wasn't involved in the lawsuit and had no influence over any of the legal proceedings.

I'm also not sure where "LavaBaron" would say the sources name me as a "candidate" except in a hypothetical, potential or rejected sense. As I've previously noted above, the KELO-TV source says I "sought to be" a U.S. Senate candidate, which explicitly and correctly indicates that my potential candidacy was dependent upon the ballot-access lawsuit and that I hadn't yet become a candidate. In reality I hadn't even actively "sought" to become a U.S. Senate candidate. I'd merely agreed to do so if Judge Schreier approved the state party's motion for ballot access. When "LavaBaron" puts forward the assertion that I "engaged in campaigning" as a Constitution Party candidate, it seems to me that the burden of proof would be on him to indicate exactly where he believes the sources say that.

I definitely agree that one need not attempt to "qualify" in order to declare as a party's candidate or to actively campaign as a party's candidate, but I'd actually done none of those things in the case at hand. From the beginning my potential candidacy was dependent on the previously pending ballot-access lawsuit, and the Constitution Party was denied ballot access when the state party's motions to allow a U.S. Senate candidacy were rejected by federal district judge Karen Schreier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.251.226 (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

This is Kurt Evans. I'm wondering whether the expiration of the RFC template marked the end of this discussion and, if so, what's supposed to happen next. — 216.249.245.49 (talk) 03:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The RfC technically ends on January 3rd (GMT), however I think it's to a point where an uninvolved editor can close it now. I will post it to the request for closures noticeboard if it is not done with in a day or two. -- Dane ^talk 05:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

This is Kurt Evans. My requests to several media outlets for minor corrections were delayed by the holidays, and there's still some inaccurate information at the Dakota Free Press, KELO-TV and Ballotpedia websites. As long as no new accusations are being posted against me, there's no incentive for me to have the discussion here closed, and I'd like to ask for a ten-day extension. — 216.249.245.49 (talk) 07:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2016

Request removal of the following source (currently reference #20):

"Case 4:15-cv-04111-KES" (PDF). United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, Southern Division. Retrieved September 26, 2016. http://ballot-access.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/South-Dakota-procedural-win.pdf

Wikipedia policy forbids the use of "trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_misuse_of_primary_sources 208.53.225.75 (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done: removing court case per BLP Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Second semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2016

Request addition of the following source immediately following reference #19:

(pull exact text from diff)

This source documents the final legal resolution of the matter. —208.53.225.75 (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Here's the diff with the exact text of the reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=767306806 —208.53.225.75 (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 19:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This isn't a request to change X to Y. It's a request to place an additional reference in the article immediately following reference #19. I don't know how to display a verbatim copy of the text of the additional reference on this talk page. If I tried, Wikipedia's software would interpret that text as an actual reference, replace it with a reference number, and display the additional source at the bottom of this talk page.

The only way I know to get around this problem is for an editor to follow the link I've posted to the diff with the exact text of the September 8 reference, copy the text of the September 8 reference from that diff, and add that reference to the article following reference #19. Maybe it would be easier to copy the text of the additional September 8 reference from the diff at the following link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=767430078

If an editor is still unsure what's being requested, feel free to ask for further explanation. —216.249.253.75 (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, let me try it this way:

Please change to . —208.53.225.67 (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

References

As previously explained to "Eggishorn" in the following section of this talk page, the reason for adding the September 8 source to the article is as follows: The two current references in the Constitution Party section of the article accurately document the first statement in that section (that the state party "nominated Kurt Evans for Senate depending on the resolution of a ballot-access legal action"), but neither of those two references accurately documents the second statement in that section (that the state party's request [should be "motions" (plural)] to place a U.S. Senate candidate on the ballot "was [should be 'were'] not granted"). The Constitution Party wasn't ultimately denied ballot access until Judge Schreier had finally rejected both of the state party's motions to allow a U.S. Senate candidacy on August 31, well after the section's current sources were published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.225.67 (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Stickee (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Request for explanation from Dane (formerly "Dane2007")

These are excerpts from the following AN/I discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=752732312#Disruptive_editing_and_BLP_accusations_with_United_States_Senate_election_in_South_Dakota.2C_2016

Kurt Evans:

In reality the Constitution Party was denied ballot access when Judge Schreier rejected the state party's motions to allow a U.S. Senate candidacy, as sourced in the Dakota Free Press articles from August 18 and September 8. "ALPolitico" and "Dane2007" have both refused to explain why they're so determined to conceal this information from Wikipedia's readers, and their actions have obviously been a huge inconvenience for me...

These are the sources I'd placed in the article. —KE

Heidelberger, Cory (August 18, 2016). "Constitution Party Still Fighting to Place Evans and Schmidt on Ballot". Dakota Free Press. Retrieved November 22, 2016. http://dakotafreepress.com/2016/08/18/constitution-party-still-fighting-to-place-evans-and-schmidt-on-ballot/

Heidelberger, Cory (September 8, 2016). "Constitution Party Definitely Not Getting Evans and Schmidt on Ballot". Dakota Free Press. Retrieved November 22, 2016. http://dakotafreepress.com/2016/09/08/constitution-party-definitely-not-getting-evans-and-schmidt-on-ballot/

"Matticusmadness":

I hate to be the WP:STICK guy, but, can someone at least point out what's wrong with his sources?

Dane:

There is nothing wrong with his sources...they just don't say what he's trying to argue while citing them.

"ALPolitico":

To second this, the sources are fine, they just don't say anything about a "conditional nomination," which isn't even a legal thing... I reverted his edits, including the sources he added, because the previous sources were also fine, while the additional sources added nothing new.

Kurt Evans:

I'm not sure what "Dane2007" means when he says my sources don't say what I'm trying to say. The Dakota Free Press articles from August 18 and September 8 show that my potential candidacy was dependent on the state party's ballot-access lawsuit and that the Constitution Party was denied ballot access when its motions to allow a U.S. Senate candidacy were rejected by federal district judge Karen Schreier. That's exactly what I'm trying to say...

The claim by "ALPolitico" that he repeatedly removed my sources because they "added nothing new" is absurd. The information in the Dakota Free Press article from September 8, for example, couldn't possibly have been available from any previous source...

The explanation for my October 17 edit said the direct link to Judge Schreier's final August 31 ruling (added as a source by "ALPolitico") was "an uncredited sub-link from the September 8 Dakota Free Press article I'd posted as a reference before, which ['ALPolitico' had] arbitrarily removed for no stated reason." Now he's suggesting he didn't know that, which raises the question of whether he was even bothering to read the explanations for my edits before he undid them.

Dane:

Is it reasonable to restore the article and semi-protect indefinitely to prevent future disruptive activity?

Kurt Evans:

It seems to me that a reasonable next step would be for "Dane2007" to explain why he insists on sourcing to an August 15 Ballot Access News article that contains outdated and misleading information rather than to the Dakota Free Press article from September 8...

By admitting that there's nothing wrong with the Dakota Free Press sources from August 18 and September 8, "Dane2007" and "ALPolitico" have implicitly admitted that the Ballot Access News article from August 15 contains outdated and misleading information. I know very little about Wikipedia protocol, but in view of the fact that "Dane 2007" and "ALPolitico" have yet to offer any explanation whatsoever of why they insist on sourcing to the Ballot Access News article, I'd like to request an additional week of temporary full protection.

Dane:

As "ALPolitico" and I have repeatedly stated, your sources do not claim what you're trying to say in the article. Ultimately an administrator on this page will have to review and decide this as we are unable to come to a resolution on this issue and going back and forth on the same statements isn't going to get us there.

Kurt Evans:

The Dakota Free Press sources from August 18 and September 8 show that my potential candidacy was dependent on the state party's ballot-access lawsuit and that the Constitution Party was denied ballot access when its motions to allow a U.S. Senate candidacy were rejected by federal district judge Karen Schreier. That's exactly what I'm trying to say, but I'm not suggesting that we ought to go "back and forth on the same statements." I'm suggesting that "Dane2007" and "ALPolitico" ought to explain why they insist on sourcing to an August 15 Ballot Access News article that contains outdated and misleading information rather than to the Dakota Free Press article from September 8.

"Someguy1221":

Good grief. It seems like the obvious solution here is to simply explain in greater detail why Kurt Evans was not on the ballot.

Dane:

Perhaps extended semi-protection or indef semi-protection on the page?

Kurt Evans:

All I'm trying to say is that the Constitution Party was denied ballot access when the state party's motions to allow a U.S. Senate candidacy were rejected by Judge Schreier, which is clearly stated in the September 8 source alone (the source "Dane2007" has repeatedly removed for no stated reason)...

It still seems to me that a reasonable next step would be for "ALPolitico" and "Dane2007" to explain why they insist on sourcing to an August 15 Ballot Access News article that contains outdated and misleading information rather than to the Dakota Free Press article from September 8...

I'm not seeing any obvious problems with the proposal by "Someguy1221" to "just put a sentence or two explaining why he wasn't allowed on the ballot, and decide what a good header for his subsection should be"...

If the above information is clearly stated in the body of the article, and if the Dakota Free Press sources from August 18 and September 8 are both included, I'd also consider withdrawing my objection to the Ballot Access News article from August 15 as an additional source.

*end of excerpts from AN/I discussion*

Neither Dane nor any other regular Wikipedia editor has provided any legitimate reason whatsoever for removing the September 8 source—the only source ever added here that actually documents the final legal resolution of the matter—and it's long past time for Dane to explain his real reason for repeatedly removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.248.20 (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, but neither @Dane2007: nor any other editor owes you any explanation. No editor owes you anything, as a matter of fact. Now, granted, there are policies and guidelines and certain non-negotiables (like BLP) and we generally like to see that BLP subjects are treated fairly, but the demands of an article subject are not required to be heeded. I did read through the prior extensive discussion in order to attempt to treat you as fairly as possible in closing the discussion above. At this point, you are verging on quixotic quests to have the information presented as you want and only as you want. There is no requirement for that. There is a requirement for sourcing, but not all sources are required nor are only the sources you deem acceptable required. Threats and demands, especially legal threats, are not going to get you anywhere. If you would clearly and concisely state what you wanted, you might get it. In point of fact, that's exactly what happened when you posted your first edit request above, isn't it? I left the second alone because I wasn't sure what it was requesting, and this Jeremiad above really doesn't help any other editor trying to improve the article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The current references in the Constitution Party section accurately document the first statement in that section, but they fail to accurately document the second. The Constitution Party wasn't ultimately denied ballot access until Judge Schreier had finally rejected both of the state party's motions to allow a U.S. Senate candidacy on August 31, well after the section's current sources were published.

In response to your accusations regarding "quixotic quests": I'm not the one who's refused to compromise here. Every revision I'd made in the months prior to the AN/I was an attempt at compromise. As can be seen from the overwhelming evidence on this talk page alone, regular Wikipedia editors like Dane and "ALPolitico" are the ones who flat-out refused—for months and months—to engage in any discussions whatsoever of possible compromises. Instead they've undertaken a truly baffling effort to preserve the misinformation they placed in the article by repeatedly pushing for semi-protection based on false accusations against me.

It's unclear how the second semi-protected edit request above could have been stated more concisely. It's requesting that an editor would follow the posted link to the diff, copy the text of the reference to the September 8 source, and add it to the article following reference #19. If you're still unsure what's being requested, feel free to ask for further explanation.

For the record, I'm still waiting for Dane's explanation. —216.249.248.20 (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

And that's exactly why you are having trouble. You expect other editors to cater to your opinion. You seem to feel you are in possession of THE TRUTH^TM and state that everyone else is blocking it. And so you "wait for explanations" no-one is obligated to give you. Let me ask you this: Do you think your method of interacting with the other editors is working? By your own account, you have been trying to "correct" this one tiny part of a small article for months. You have edit-warred and made legal threats and made demands and asked the other editors to cater to you. You have been blocked and the article has been locked from IP editors. After extensive discussion, it still is apparently not acceptable to you. That is all evidence to me that your editing style is not achieving your goals. Is achieving that goal, i.e., an article that reads the way you want, important to you? Or is being "right" (in whatever way you define as "right") more important? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

There really isn't much more to say here. Eggishorn has covered it very well - you've gone through the processes, the article has been revised - in fact, we (multiple editors) even reviewed it a second time to come up with a different version. You have violated multiple policies during the run of this -- most recently a week ago with your latest legal threats (which Ymblanter has blocked you for doing in the past) and you have repeatedly stated ALPolitico and I are simply working against you, almost implying that we have some sort of agenda to provide inaccurate information. We are working with in Wikipedia policy and guidelines to create content that is unbiased and correct - and the process of gaining consensus has run and determined the best way to present the content. You have the right to disagree with that and to ask for further changes in edit requests (as you've done above) but you do not have the right to continue disrupting the encyclopedia because you don't like the result. -- Dane ^talk 00:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

"Eggishorn" writes, "You expect other editors to cater to your opinion. You seem to feel you are in possession of THE TRUTH^TM and state that everyone else is blocking it."

The Constitution Party wasn't ultimately denied ballot access until Judge Schreier had finally rejected both of the state party's motions to allow a U.S. Senate candidacy on August 31, well after the section's current sources were published. That's not my opinion. That's the truth.

"Eggishorn" asks, "Do you think your method of interacting with the other editors is working?"

Yes, better than any other method I've tried has.

"Eggishorn" asks, "Is achieving that goal, i.e., an article that reads the way you want, important to you? Or is being "right" (in whatever way you define as "right") more important?"

Being right is far more important. I'd long ago accepted the fact that this article was never going to read the way I wanted it to read.

Dane writes, "Eggishorn has covered it very well - you've gone through the processes, the article has been revised - in fact, we (multiple editors) even reviewed it a second time to come up with a different version."

So the editor who instigated and repeatedly escalated the conflict helped to determine the "resolution" of the conflict. If this is Wikipedia policy, it's lousy policy.

Dane writes, "... you have repeatedly stated ALPolitico and I are simply working against you, almost implying that we have some sort of agenda to provide inaccurate information."

You obviously have an agenda to provide inaccurate information, Dane. If you'd had a legitimate reason for removing the single most relevant source in this dispute, you should have given that reason months ago, the first time you removed it.

Dane writes, "We are working with in Wikipedia policy and guidelines to create content that is unbiased and correct - and the process of gaining consensus has run and determined the best way to present the content."

No you're not, and no it hasn't. —216.249.248.20 (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Drop the stick. -- Dane ^talk 02:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

We've never "debated" this in the first place, Dane. You've simply removed accurate information, added misinformation, refused to provide reasons, and repeatedly pushed for semi-protection by leveling false accusations against me. —216.249.248.20 (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)