Talk:2018 United States Senate election in California

Small updates

I added a note that Loretta Sanchez was a candidate in the 2016 Senate election, as it seems relevant here, and removed political parties from the infobox since California uses a nonpartisan primary system, so there's no guarantee that there will be exactly one Democrat and one Republican in the general election. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 02:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Removed Feinstein age discussion

I have removed the discussion over senator Feinstein age, in the top part. over suspected bias against her. Macraesam17 (talk) 09:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Alison Hartson - Justice Democrats

I believe Alison Hartson is running under the Justice Democrats rather than the Democratic Party. How should we go about re-organizing this article to reflect that? --User:Mattomynameo 17:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Justice Democrats aren't a party. They are an organization that is trying to reform the Democratic Party and move it to the left and also away from corporate donors. They endorse and support candidates that do not take any PAC money et cetera. Anyway, Hartson is running as a Democrat with the support of Justice Democrats. I don't see anything wrong with he listed as a Democrat, anything else would be incorrect. --User:Schuh22 26 February 2018. —Preceding undated comment added 01:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Whole page is trolled

Somebody seems to have gone to a lot of time and effort to vandalize this page and replace it with a fictional account of Jake and Logan Paul running against each other, complete with county-by-county results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:9080:57E0:F4CA:DC5F:9578:8105 (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

 Handled. The previous version has been restored, and the offending editor has been blocked. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Not handled—-a sock farm vandalizing the article and talk page. Both need to be locked. 50.74.82.234 (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree; I've requested protection over at WP:RfPP. SkyWarrior 04:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. This is a continuation of the same from three days ago. 50.74.82.234 (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps "being handled" is more accurate. Thank you SkyWarrior and General Ization for your work. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Filing deadline & "Potential Candidates"

Hi. I noticed on the page that the filing deadline was March 8, 2018. Do we still need the sections on "Potential Candidates"? Does that also apply to "third" party filings? I suppose someone could do a write-in campaign; would that (unlikely?) possibility merit keeping the sections? Could we indicate that they were in the "potential" category, but did not file?

What do you all suggest we do?

TenorTwelve (talk) 06:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Alpha order for candidate lists

All the candidate lists are now in alpha order. All except the democrat candidate was in alpha order, but it looks as though there had been some manipulation to that list. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

A user is wrongfully removing Patrick Little from "Polling."

The user Ionol is removing the poll with Patrick Little in second as if he withdrew. Little is still in the race. What can be done about this possible trolling? Kart2401real (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

What determines party affiliation in a nonpartisan primary? Whatever the candidate says?

Specifically, in what sense can Patrick Little be described as a Republican, since nobody in the Republican party recognizes him as a member or wants anything to do with him? -- 209.150.231.38 (talk) 05:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The candidate chooses the party label. It's whatever the candidate says. The party doesn't need to endorse candidates running under their label. Kart2401real (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2018

Please change

• Erin Cruz, podcaster

to

• Erin Cruz, Published Author

Because it is the official State of California ballot designation used. Wagnergirle (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done .spintendo  20:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Patrick Little deletion/merge

Use all the words and cite all the rules you want to fool yourselves- it's clear to every non-Wikipedian that this action was taken because of personal feelings about the subject. Wikipedia is best when it remains objective and does not allow subjective opinions to dictate what information is and isn't available or how it is presented. Yet, there is a growing history of pernicious groups and individuals using policy and procedure to do just that, and this is the latest entry in that list, a burden on Wikipedia's reputation. 97.87.9.107 (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

No it's not. Wikipedia does this to all candidates that didn't win an election yet, to avoid the promotional use of Wikipedia. Don't worry about it, I learned this the hard way too when two of my article got deleted last year. Emass100 (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Poll missing

Shouldn't the May poll conducted by Stanford's Bill Lane Center be added? SecretName101 (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, that's the YouGov poll. Mélencron (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It is the YouGov poll we have listed, but the summmary had De La Fuente at 21%; I cannot find the full poll results. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

And now I've found the archive of the data that was dead-linked, and see that the poll included a follow-up, and it's the follow-up figures, not the first round figures (with that odd 21% number) we're listing. Never mind. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Kevin de León's Colour

I saw that Kevin de León's infobox colour is now light blue, a change from green yesterday. However, I think we should use the same shade of blue for both these candidates as they are both of the same party, the Democrats, and they are contesting a general election. I agree that colours should be different for primaries because they're all of the same party, but in a General, putting one candidate of the colour Wikipedia always uses for democratic candidates and not to the other would show favouritism for one candidate, and might violate NPOV.

I don't see a problem in putting them both of the same colour. They would both be marked as "democrats" on a ballot. The only place we should separate the colours is on the results map, for obvious reason, but I think this is inappropriate for the infobox. Emass100 (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The reason for differing colors relates directly to the map. Calibrador (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

We can have separate colour schemes for the infobox and the map. Also: the map won't be an issue until after the election is over, where we could re-consider the colour schemes. In the meantime, I feel we need to have them both the same colour because this is the colour of their political party. Emass100 (talk) 04:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant Information should be removed

I removed a bunch of information that has no place on this article. This information is irrelevant and can be found elsewhere on this article. I see no reason why this stuff should stay, and yet my edits where reverted. I gave clear reasons for every edit I made, it was clearly constructive. I made the article more concise, on topic, and easier to read. I don't understand why these edits were reverted. 2601:206:4000:8774:1C7D:1A23:B116:F19C (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

That's a straight-out lie. The candidate pictures are not anywhere else in the article, and the per-county results aren't elsewhere (the image has FAR less detail). Furthermore, you've reduced the lead section to two sentences, supposedly because the prose duplicates content in the infobox. This omits essential details like the candidates and winner of the election. This is obviously not appropriate, and I am certain consensus will agree with me. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree with the above, the articles should mimic the formats of pass US Senate election articles. VietPride10 (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, the per-county results should stay, removing those were a mistake. We should just remove the map, as the more detailed list giving the same information plus more negates the map's purpose. The candidate pictures are simply not relevant. They add no information aside from promoting the candidates, which is not something an unbiased source like this should do. The "essential" details I ommited all are stated later in the article, so putting it in the heading is just redundant. Everything I deleted is either irrelevant, stated elsewhere in the article, or is outdated. To the point that this article's format should mimic the format for other election articles: I agree! All election articles should have the format I want for this one! The issue is that the current format is flawed. 2601:206:4000:8774:1C7D:1A23:B116:F19C (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You cannot change an established precedent just because you want to. VietPride10 (talk) 03:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, I think that it should be changed because of how flawed and redundant the current format is. Hopefully that is something we can discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:206:4000:8774:F443:26A8:96DF:2322 (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of whether the section of the article talking about Feinstein's age should be removed

There is a sentence in the article stating "She turned 85 years old in 2018, leading to speculation that she would retire in January 2019,[3][4] as her long-time colleague Barbara Boxer did in January 2017." In my view, the inclusion of this sentence was completely unacceptable. In my opinion, this sentence is violent hate speech against the elderly. It was clear hate speech because it insulted the elderly by strongly implying that elderly people can't do anything, and as such should not serve in the Senate even if the person is a good legislator like Feinstein is. To be clear, hate speech is violence, because it always leads to violence. Islamophobia leads to shootings against mosques. Anti-Semitism lead to the Holocuast. Anti-Christian speech leads to violence against Christians. Homophobia leads to shootings against gay people. Because hate speech is so tied to violence, it is impossible to make the argument that their is any significant difference between the two things. Hate speech and violence are one in the same. By suggesting that elderly people have no ability to do anything, you will wind up encouraging a Far-Right authoritarian capitalist to kill elderly people because he feels they are mooching off the government and provide no value to society due to being retired. This is a very real danger that results from hate speech like this, which is why it should be removed instantly and every edit with the sentence included should be deleted from the revision history. Wikipedia is no place for hate speech/violence.

Originally I handled this situation very badly. I removed the sentence. When people reverted my edit, I was furious. I couldn't understand why anyone who wasn't a far-right hate monger would want the sentence to stay. So I edit-warred and made personal attacks that I shouldn't have made on this talk page. All I wanted to do was to defend the elderly from violence, which is a personal issue for me since my grandmother was killed in a violent attack. I should of handled myself better and assumed good faith, which was very hard to do at the time. I am deeply sorry for what I did. I later a bunch of unblock requests stating that I regret my actions, but they were declined. I then decided to just to wait the block out. I now wish that I would have done that in the first place and not made all those request. I also decided to make an account so that I could edit easier.

I promise that I am done with assuming bad faith on fellow editors and now am ready to have a good discussion. I want to have a productive discussion about this issue. Could you guys please explain why you don't find this sentence violent hate speech and think it is worthy to stay? I promise that this will be a productive discussion with no personal attacks. All I want to do is make Wikipedia a better and more inclusive place.DefenderOfTheElderly (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Verified that the editor no longer has blocked IPs/accounts so should receive an assumption of good faith

@DefenderOfTheElderly: Since these comments are your first edits using this account, but you refer to earlier episodes in which you edit-warred and engaged in personal attacks and that you were blocked for them, we will need for you to identify the account you were using to conduct those previous activities. If that previous account is still blocked, there is a specific procedure to request that it be unblocked and that you be allowed to edit constructively. I suspect you may have not followed that procedure. If that account is no longer blocked, you should resume using it, and/or have it blocked again if you intend to continue using this one, to avoid any possibility and/or the appearance of sockpuppetry. General Ization Talk 00:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC) Those previous incidents were all my IP editing, I had no account. All of the blocks the IP addresses were given have expired, so there is no block evasion here. DefenderOfTheElderly (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC) I appreciate that. Can you identify the IPs involved, please? General Ization Talk 00:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC) I see one of them: 2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Are there others? General Ization Talk 00:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC) There were quite a few IPs I used (Since I was using my mobile data and was on a trip it constantly changed.), but here is the main range involved: Special:Contributions/2600:387:6:800:0:0:0:0/60 DefenderOfTheElderly (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC) Thanks. Have a good and productive discussion of the issue that you raised. (Once I am confident you have read this, I will collapse this portion of the discussion so it will not distract from your main questions.) General Ization Talk 00:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC) Thank you! DefenderOfTheElderly (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Since there have been no more objection to my argument to remove the violent hate speech, I went ahead and removed it again. If you disagree, discuss here.DefenderOfTheElderly (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Username checks out. But I don't think this is hate speech, never mind violent hate speech. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Is that remark about my username sarcastic? What is the issue? And I already explained why it is violent hate speech. I am sick of people claiming that my argument is "ludicrous", "insane", or "an exaggeration" with nothing to back it upDefenderOfTheElderly (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Your argument is a clear exaggeration and I'd recommend that you take a step back and let people who are less invested in the issue evaluate this sort of content. The wording that you removed from the page is not violent, in that it does not "use physical force to hurt, damage, or kill someone". It is not hate speech, as it is neither abusive nor threatening and expresses no prejudice against a group. It does not say that all elderly people are incapable of holding office due to their age, it said that reliable sources discussed the possibility that the senator may retire given the fact that a similar senator did retire under similar conditions. That is not a prejudiced statement. It might not be particularly useful to include in the article, but it is accurate and not hate speech. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• We have been through this before, and what DefenderOfTheElderly is claiming is utter nonsense. It is not hate speech, it is absolutely not violent, it is not "suggesting that elderly people have no ability to do anything", and it is absolutely not "encouraging a Far-Right authoritarian capitalist to kill elderly people because he feels they are mooching off the government and provide no value to society due to being retired". Honestly, I haven't heard anything quite so stupid for a long time - and that's talking about on Wikipedia which is saying something. I have reverted the removal of the well-sourced and perfectly acceptable sentence, and if this idiocy keeps up then I will be seeking a topic ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

  As an afterthought, and something I thought when I saw the same thing via IPs, is that this is essentially indistinguishable from trolling - especially looking back at the rev-deleted edit summaries and their attacks on other editors calling them Nazis. I know, AGF and all that, but... Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• Totally agree with both Ajraddatz and Boing! said Zebedee. The premise is absurd. General Ization ^Talk 22:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz: I have already explained this, and you are missing my point. The speech in the article is abusive and threatening and expresses a prejudice against a group. It may not directly say that all elderly people are incapable of holding office due to their age, but it is strongly implied and that is the point that readers will get out of reading it. There is no debate about this. And no, the statement isn't accurate. Saying that a fine legislator such as Feinstein should probably retire although she no shown no signs of her age causing any issues is factless prejudice against the elderly. Once again, there is no debate about this. And this hate speech is violence, because speech such as this directly lead to horrible acts being committed. Hate speech and violence are so tied together that they are one in the same.

@Boing! said Zebedee: I am very disappointed in you. All your comments above were personal attacks. First you said my argument was wrong without explaining why. Then you called me stupid. Then you threatened to ban me for trying to have a reasonable discussion. Then you accused me of being a troll without any evidence. When I made personal attacks, I was rightfully banned. I apologized and stopped doing that. By making personal attacks, you are doing the exact same thing I did. Hypocrite. You should be banned just like I was, and then give me an apology, just like I did. For shame. I expected better out of you. If this is the treatment I get for trying to have a productive and reasonable discussion, then I don't want to be part of this community. Trust me, I would rather be doing something else. The only reason I am here is because I am worried about the violence the hate speech will lead to.

DefenderOfTheElderly (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• And one last note before I go to bed. This is admin-only as it has been rev-deleted, but it needs to be seen by anyone reviewing the context of this issue. It was from one of DefenderOfTheElderly's IP addresses (one of the confessed Special:Contributions/2600:387:6:800:0:0:0:0/60 range), and consisted of "YOU VIOLENT THUGS ARE THE REASON MY GRANDMA AND OTHER ELDERLY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN KILLED! STOP DEFENDING NAZIS AND START PREVENTJNG VIOLENCE AGAINST THE ELDERLY! FUCK ALL OF YOU!!!!!!" repeated hundreds of times (yes, hundreds, adding 277,696 characters to the page), and the edit summary was "Fuck Nazis". And that's over a sentence that simply says "She turned 85 years old in 2018, leading to speculation that she would retire in January 2019, as her long-time colleague Barbara Boxer did in January 2017." Never mind a topic ban, I'm starting to think more along the lines of a site ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

  Oh, and the person responsible for that has the nerve to accuse me of personal attacks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not missing your point: you're tilting at windmills. The statement implies absolutely nothing about competence -- what it implies is that people around that age may be considering retirement. Given that the average age of retirement is 62, that is a reasonable topic of discussion, and does not imply or say that she is incompetent due to her age. As I've said before, just take a step back. If there is something actually wrong with that statement then others will find it and fix it. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I'm hoping to retire a lot younger than that - it's what people do when they get old, have worked and contributed all their lives, and deserve some rest and relaxation. And retired people are not "mooching off the government". I don't know about every country, obviously, but here in the UK my (small) state pension will be dependent on the National Insurance contributions that *I* have paid all my working life, and I have my own private pension/retirement investments in place. I, certainly, will not be "mooching" off anyone, and I'm quite sure Dianne Feinstein is in a better (and non-mooching) financial state than me. To see the suggestion that someone might take their well-deserved retirement after a long life of contributing to society as violent hate speech is beyond anything I can comprehend. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: I am deeply sorry for saying that, I was way too angry at the time. I have already apologized many times and promised to not do anything of the sort again. I am trying to have a calm discussion here, but you guys keep making personal attacks against me and bring up stuff I have already apologized for. You are being hypocritical, because you are doing to same thing that I was banned for. Stop making personal attacks. DefenderOfTheElderly (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

A recitation of facts, even if they are facts that you would rather be forgotten, is not a personal attack. When your argument against the content is so wildly skewed from the reality of what the content actually says, it is quite appropriate to look into your previous episodes to try to find some explanation. It sounds to me like BsZ has offered us, if not an explanation, at least a useful insight. General Ization ^Talk 22:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@General Ization: Calling me a troll and saying that I should be banned again for something that I was already banned for is a personal attack. I was already banned for the comments that were cited, saying that I should be blocked for them again is completely absurd. DefenderOfTheElderly (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I did not call you a troll, I suggested that your claims are indistinguishable from trolling - I don't know if it's trolling, or a lack of competence in understanding a simple and harmless sentence, or what. But the effect is the same, and equally disruptive. And no, you were not banned before, you were blocked. I am now suggesting that a ban might be needed if you continue with this nonsense. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't see that anyone called you a troll; I saw it suggested that you might be engaging in trolling behavior, and I can see some justification for that. Pointing out that your current tirade is remarkably similar to ones you engaged in previously (less the profanity) is a valid observation, and I think the speculation that a ban was in order pertained to your current activity, not activity for which you have been blocked before. There is, sadly, a point at which we must determine that an editor is beyond redemption, especially when they repeat previous behavior after a seemingly heartfelt pledge not to do so. General Ization ^Talk 23:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly my reason for suggesting a ban might be needed - that, even without the personal attacks, the same obsessive nonsense is continuing, and it is disruptive. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The reason I was blocked before was because I was making personal attacks against others. I have stopped doing this, so the idea that I should be blocked again because my behavior hasn't changed much is absurd. I have very clearly changed my behavior, I am simply looking for a reasonable discussion.DefenderOfTheElderly (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks are one reason to be blocked. Another is persistent refusal to get the point and to respect consensus. General Ization ^Talk 23:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz: The statement never said that Feinstein herself was considering retirement. It said that, purely because of her age, other people assumed that she would be retiring. This is prejudice against the elderly, there is NO debate about this. Saying that she will probably retire because she is above the average retirement age is stereotyping garbage. The only reason something would think that is because they think elderly people are incompetent. DefenderOfTheElderly (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The content did not say that she would probably retire, or that she should. It said there was speculation that she would, with citations that supported that statement. Perhaps you should have a talk with the people who engaged in the speculation, but removing the fact that it occurred from this article doesn't mean the speculation never occurred, nor that it was unfounded, much less an attack against the Senator. General Ization ^Talk 22:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

That's an objectively ridiculous statement. People don't retire because they are incompetent and nobody would believe or suggest that. People retire so they can start collecting their pension, start going on vacations, and start taking long naps in the afternoon. Or at least that's what my dad tells me. Anyway, I won't be debating this further. It should be clear to you at this point that your concern is not shared by others, and that now is the time to drop it. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@General Ization: I don't think that giving fringe right-wing groups who spout hate speech and stereotypes against the elderly credibility is something Wikipedia should be doing. DefenderOfTheElderly (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz: I agree that people don't retire because they are incompetent, that is the whole point I was making. My issue is that the sentence strongly implies that and could potentially lead to violence. And "It should be clear to you at this point that your concern is not shared by others, and that now is the time to drop it." is an absolutely disgusting statement for anyone to make. Tell that to a person in Nazi Germany who was concerned about how the Jews were being murdered. DefenderOfTheElderly (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

And there is the invocation of the Nazis spoken of previously — which has absolutely nothing to do with Dianne Feinstein or speculation that she might retire at 85 years old. I'm done, as this editor has no concept of false equivalence. General Ization ^Talk 23:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

All I was pointing out was how terrible that statement was by showing its logical conclusion. Using the logic that you shouldn't be concerned about something that other people are not concerned about, a person in Nazi Germany shouldn't have been concerned about Jews being murdered, simply because others didn't share the concern. It was an extremely bad argument. DefenderOfTheElderly (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Nothing at all logical about that false equivalence, and, assuming that you are an adult, and a mature one, you should know better. I am done, gone, finis. I am on record. General Ization ^Talk 23:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow, you said that I was making an illogical false equivalence without explaining what was illogical about it. You just kept repeating that it was illogical. Weak. DefenderOfTheElderly (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I submitted a report against User:Boing!_said_Zebedee's personal attacks against. Since I was blocked for making my personal attacks,it is only fair that he should be blocked for making his. DefenderOfTheElderly (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Defender, and your interest in fairness for the elders is admirable. So please don't get banned by assuming a combat stance, we need you here. One of the pillars of Wikipedia is "assume good faith", and we should all realize that other editors have a point of view and that they express it in good faith. Many Wikipedia editors come and go when faced with criticism by the "elders" of Wikipedia, who should be respected but respectful, and work with the new editors. I can see your point with this issue, although if the statement is sourced its use here, which has been agreed to by quite a few editors, is appropriate. Remember that Donald Trump is soon to be 73, and he has pushed the envelope of what elders can accomplish and even what elderly means as we approach a new decade. Not bad progress, and, like I mention, please assume good faith and treat everyone here well. We Wikipedians all work for nothing, and that's something in everyone's favor and worth remembering. Good to "meet" you on the Wikipedia byways. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

OP has now been blocked indef for a frivolous ANI report and moving BsZ's user page to an inappropriately-named page. This circular discussion can probably be closed unless DOTE decides to take to the drawers and bring out the socks. Nate • (chatter) 00:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

That's too bad, as new editors should be given much leeway and time to learn that these kinds of name calling episodes are common on Wikipedia and how to ride through them. Hopefully the admin who indef this user can have a change of heart and nurture the editor instead. How many hundreds or thousands of potentially good editors has Wikipedia lost by not giving newbies a break or giving them enough time to learn enough of the ropes to both want to last and to last. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Your ability to AGF and concern for newbies is admirable. However, I suspect that in this case both are undeserved, and that the OP is neither operating in good faith nor is, IMHO, a newbie; more likely an LTA. There was quite a lot of evidence here, and in the OP's actions, to suggest that they have been around for quite a while, and that their trolling and baiting behavior is not new behavior. I don't personally believe this had anything to do with Dianne Feinstein or with concern for the elderly; it was entertainment. I believed that when I and the other editors in this discussion stopped responding to their provocations, the OP would do something else dramatic and provocative (and atypical for a newbie), and that is exactly what they did (actions for which they have now been indeffed). General Ization ^Talk 02:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, point taken. I comment once in awhile in cases like this on the chance that the newbie is really a newbie (they can run into established-editor buzz saws quickly without realizing why they are being criticized and not everyone sticks around to learn), and yes, it was an odd already-dated article and sentence to make such a fuss over, especially since the information in the sentence was overtaken by Feinstein running and winning. And who knows, maybe Feinstein will run again and the next elder-protecting editor (change the name of The Old Guitarist or else!) will have a go. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• For anyone who thinks this is a genuine newbie with any chance of contributing productively here, I'll just point you to this edit by DefenderOfTheElderly logged out after being blocked. It's been rev-deleted, but for non-admins, it's a repeat of the one I quoted above, but with lots more "FUCK"s, and repeated up to 789,274 chars. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• And I see the block has been upgraded to a checkuser block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Conflation

There seems to be conflation between the primary and general election in this article. The primary election had a LOT of candidates, but the general election had only two (Feinstein and de León). Is anyone going to get upset if I completely restructure this article? Could someone with more time on their hands do it for me? It seems like most of the article should be "#Primary election polling" and "#General election polling" sections, rather than "#Polling" (for example). -- RobLa (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)