[Election] Unqualified votes striking

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
23 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Election] Unqualified votes striking

KIZU Naoko
Hello,

The Election Committee regretfully announces that we will have to
remove approximately 220 votes submitted. These votes were cast by
people not entitled to vote. The election rules state that users must
have at least 400 edits by March 1 to be eligible to vote.

The voter lists we sent to Software in the Public Interest (our third
party election partner) initially were wrong. There was a bug in the
edit counting program and the sent list contained every account with
201 or more edits, instead of 400 or more edits. So large numbers of
people were qualified according to the software who shouldn't be. The
bug has been fixed and the list of voters has been amended by the SPI.

Our first (and incorrect) list contains 80,458 accounts as qualified.
The proper number of qualified accounts in the SPI list is now 52,750.
As of the morning of July 4 (UTC), there are 2,773 unique voters and
220 people have voted who are not qualified based upon this identified
error.

In accordance with voting regulations the Election Committee will
strike the approximate 220 votes due to lack of voting eligibility.
The list of struck votes are available at
<https://wikimedia.spi-inc.org/index.php/List_of_struck_votes>. The
Election Committee is trying to contact those voters separately by
email.

It is possible that some of those people may have accounts on other
projects where they have more than 400 edits, and they may still be
eligible to vote. We strongly encourage them to vote again with their
other account. For those people who don't have any other accounts
eligible to vote, we hope they reach the criteria in the next
Election, and will be happy to see them participate in the future
Elections.

Your comments, questions or messages to the Committee would be
appreciated, and can be made at [[m:Talk:Board elections/2007/en]].
Again, we would like to deeply apologize for any inconvenience.

Kizu Naoko
mailto:[hidden email]
For Wikimedia Board Election Steering Committee

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Election] Unqualified votes striking

Chris Sherlock [TAL]
I notice that Dmcdevit@metawiki is on this list.... however, I'm sure I've
seen him around the traps on en.wikipedia for a goodly long time.

Chris
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Election] Unqualified votes striking

KIZU Naoko
Thank you for your notice, Mr. Chris Shrlock.
Election Committee hopes all affected editors try to vote again from
their another qualified account. We are not going to respond the claim
you raised from the very reason we gave up to combine the edits from
multiple accounts. Please note there are at least 220 affected
accounts.

I personally hope the next Election will be benefited with SUL :)

Cf. Election FAQ
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2007/FAQ/en

Can I combine my edits on several projects to reach the required number?

    Unfortunately, no. Due to technical limitations, we cannot fairly
allow users to combine edits between different Wikimedia wikis at this
time for voting purposes.



On 7/5/07, ! Chris Sherlock <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I notice that Dmcdevit@metawiki is on this list.... however, I'm sure I've
> seen him around the traps on en.wikipedia for a goodly long time.
>
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
KIZU Naoko
  Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
  * habent enim emolumentum in labore suo *

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Election] Unqualified votes striking

Dominic-21
In reply to this post by Chris Sherlock [TAL]
! Chris Sherlock wrote:

> I notice that Dmcdevit@metawiki is on this list.... however, I'm sure I've
> seen him around the traps on en.wikipedia for a goodly long time.
>
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>  
That's an odd predicament, since I'm also an administrator on Meta, so I
didn't think about it, but I guess I just haven't actually reached 400
edits there. ;-) Thanks for letting me know; I see some other names on
the list I recognize: someone might want to alert them in an organized way.

Dominic

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Election] Unqualified votes striking

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by KIZU Naoko
On 7/5/07, Aphaia <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The Election Committee regretfully announces that we will have to
> remove approximately 220 votes submitted. These votes were cast by
> people not entitled to vote. The election rules state that users must
> have at least 400 edits by March 1 to be eligible to vote.
>
Did it change the results?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Election] Unqualified votes striking

KIZU Naoko
On 7/5/07, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 7/5/07, Aphaia <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > The Election Committee regretfully announces that we will have to
> > remove approximately 220 votes submitted. These votes were cast by
> > people not entitled to vote. The election rules state that users must
> > have at least 400 edits by March 1 to be eligible to vote.
> >
> Did it change the results?

We have no way to know the answer to your question, since we have no
access to tally.  And I would like you to remind that those votes
should not have been received if the error described hadn't happen.
Such result including those votes should not have existed from the
rules.

> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
KIZU Naoko
  Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
  * habent enim emolumentum in labore suo *

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Election] Unqualified votes striking

Tomasz Ganicz
In reply to this post by KIZU Naoko
2007/7/5, Aphaia <[hidden email]>:
> Hello,
>
> The Election Committee regretfully announces that we will have to
> remove approximately 220 votes submitted. These votes were cast by
> people not entitled to vote. The election rules state that users must
> have at least 400 edits by March 1 to be eligible to vote.
>

I wonder if it would be possible to use a bot to send a short messages
to all those 220 users on their discussion pages in their projects. I
guess it should not be a big deal. For example you could as interwiki
bot owner to do this. Interwiki bot has bot status on all major
Wikipedias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yurik/Interwiki_Bot_FAQ

--
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.poli.toya.net.pl
http://www.ptchem.lodz.pl/en/TomaszGanicz.html

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Election] Unqualified votes striking

Maria Fanucchi
Loveless bot has accounts on all the big wikis and many small ones:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Loveless Its master is DarkoNeko:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Darkoneko (he speaks very good
English and is often on IRC if you need to contact him quickly)
--Maria
User:Arria Belli

On 7/5/07, Tomasz Ganicz <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> 2007/7/5, Aphaia <[hidden email]>:
> > Hello,
> >
> > The Election Committee regretfully announces that we will have to
> > remove approximately 220 votes submitted. These votes were cast by
> > people not entitled to vote. The election rules state that users must
> > have at least 400 edits by March 1 to be eligible to vote.
> >
>
> I wonder if it would be possible to use a bot to send a short messages
> to all those 220 users on their discussion pages in their projects. I
> guess it should not be a big deal. For example you could as interwiki
> bot owner to do this. Interwiki bot has bot status on all major
> Wikipedias.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yurik/Interwiki_Bot_FAQ
>
> --
> Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> http://www.poli.toya.net.pl
> http://www.ptchem.lodz.pl/en/TomaszGanicz.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Election] Unqualified votes striking

Jan-Bart de Vreede
In reply to this post by Tomasz Ganicz
Hi All,

I know the election committee is working hard since yesterday on
devising a way of contacting all affected individuals through different
means.

Thanks

Jan-Bart de Vreede
Vice Chair Wikimedia Board of Trustees


Tomasz Ganicz wrote:

> 2007/7/5, Aphaia <[hidden email]>:
>  
>> Hello,
>>
>> The Election Committee regretfully announces that we will have to
>> remove approximately 220 votes submitted. These votes were cast by
>> people not entitled to vote. The election rules state that users must
>> have at least 400 edits by March 1 to be eligible to vote.
>>
>>    
>
> I wonder if it would be possible to use a bot to send a short messages
> to all those 220 users on their discussion pages in their projects. I
> guess it should not be a big deal. For example you could as interwiki
> bot owner to do this. Interwiki bot has bot status on all major
> Wikipedias.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yurik/Interwiki_Bot_FAQ
>
>  


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Election] Unqualified votes striking

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by KIZU Naoko
On 7/5/07, Aphaia <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 7/5/07, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 7/5/07, Aphaia <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > The Election Committee regretfully announces that we will have to
> > > remove approximately 220 votes submitted. These votes were cast by
> > > people not entitled to vote. The election rules state that users must
> > > have at least 400 edits by March 1 to be eligible to vote.
> > >
> > Did it change the results?
>
> We have no way to know the answer to your question, since we have no
> access to tally.

The encrypted votes are accessible on the website, I figured someone
had the key.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Election] Unqualified votes striking

Jan-Bart de Vreede
Hi Anthony

The key is in the hands of our third party partner (SPI). They will only
tally up the results after voting has finished and votes have been verified.

This way there is NO chance of leaks midway the election.

Jan-Bart de Vreede
Vice Chair Wikimedia Board of Trustees



Anthony wrote:

> On 7/5/07, Aphaia <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>> On 7/5/07, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>    
>>> On 7/5/07, Aphaia <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>      
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> The Election Committee regretfully announces that we will have to
>>>> remove approximately 220 votes submitted. These votes were cast by
>>>> people not entitled to vote. The election rules state that users must
>>>> have at least 400 edits by March 1 to be eligible to vote.
>>>>
>>>>        
>>> Did it change the results?
>>>      
>> We have no way to know the answer to your question, since we have no
>> access to tally.
>>    
>
> The encrypted votes are accessible on the website, I figured someone
> had the key.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>  


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Election] Unqualified votes striking

Philippe Beaudette
In reply to this post by Anthony-73
Anthony -

No one from the Foundation has the key.  That's one of the reasons for using a third party auditor/tally-er - only SPI has it.

Philippe
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Anthony
  To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
  Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 8:38 AM
  Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [Election] Unqualified votes striking


  On 7/5/07, Aphaia <[hidden email]> wrote:
  > On 7/5/07, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
  > > On 7/5/07, Aphaia <[hidden email]> wrote:
  > > > Hello,
  > > >
  > > > The Election Committee regretfully announces that we will have to
  > > > remove approximately 220 votes submitted. These votes were cast by
  > > > people not entitled to vote. The election rules state that users must
  > > > have at least 400 edits by March 1 to be eligible to vote.
  > > >
  > > Did it change the results?
  >
  > We have no way to know the answer to your question, since we have no
  > access to tally.

  The encrypted votes are accessible on the website, I figured someone
  had the key.

  _______________________________________________
  foundation-l mailing list
  [hidden email]
  http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Election] Unqualified votes striking

Andrew Gray
In reply to this post by Anthony-73
On 05/07/07, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > We have no way to know the answer to your question, since we have no
> > access to tally.
>
> The encrypted votes are accessible on the website, I figured someone
> had the key.

First of all, I would assume there is some system in place to prevent
idle curiosity - does the third party keep the encryption key?
Secondly, You Just Don't Do That, It's Just Not Right. But even
assuming we could and would...

As the election has some time to go, it's rather meaningless to try
and count it now - whether or not those votes had any effect on the
ultimate result is heavily dependent on what the next 80 hours of
votes are. You could probably go back afterwards and recount with the
anulled votes made eligible to see what changes. (This sort of thing
is a pretty good way of demonstrating the sensitivity of election
systems...)

If what you're *really* asking is "could setting the limit at 200 not
400 change the result", we couldn't tell even from this result - you'd
have to find some way of extrapolating for all the other ~5,000
disqualified voters who had not voted as of disqualification, but
potentially *could* have had they not been disqualified. All very
complex...

I would be surprised if it altered much, though, since there doesn't
seem to have been any systematic error in which voters were mistakenly
enabled - the threshold error will have affected all groups equally,
to a first approximation - and as such you'd expect them to be pretty
much a representative sample of voters and thus a representative
sample of votes. (Unless one candidate particularly appeals to newer
editors, I guess...)

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Election] Unqualified votes striking

Gregory Maxwell
In reply to this post by KIZU Naoko
On 7/5/07, Aphaia <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The Election Committee regretfully announces that we will have to
> remove approximately 220 votes submitted. These votes were cast by
> people not entitled to vote. The election rules state that users must
> have at least 400 edits by March 1 to be eligible to vote.

When were the rules changed? Who approved the change?

The approved rules at the start of the election were, specifically:

*On a single wiki:
**400 edits by June 1, 2007
**Contributor, measured by time of first edit, for three months prior
to June 1, 2007 (that is, by March 1, 2007)
**Not blocked

These are the same criteria which are still documented on all our help pages.

I think that at this point I must demand that you present evidence
that no parties with influence over any change to the election
criteria or the ability to influence any determination of the validity
of the election process have not had and will not have  access to
election results prior to exerting that influence.

I have heard rumors that there are plans to selectively invalidate the
election depending on the results.  I had previously attributed these
rumors to the typical paranoid ramblings of the crowd and assumed they
had no credability. But if we have suddenly changed the stated
eligibility criteria without justification I must consider the
possibility that the rumor has some merit.

> The voter lists we sent to Software in the Public Interest (our third
> party election partner) initially were wrong. There was a bug in the
> edit counting program and the sent list contained every account with
> 201 or more edits, instead of 400 or more edits.

Wait. Did you simply misspeak above?   Is the situation only that the
edit count criteria was misapplied and nothing has been changed from
the official election rules.

If that is the case then there is no problem, although more care is
required in the communications sent.

(and I might like to mention that my mailing did not suffer from this
particular flaw)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Election] Unqualified votes striking

Thomas Dalton
> > The Election Committee regretfully announces that we will have to
> > remove approximately 220 votes submitted. These votes were cast by
> > people not entitled to vote. The election rules state that users must
> > have at least 400 edits by March 1 to be eligible to vote.
>
> When were the rules changed? Who approved the change?

As far as I know, the rules haven't change. That last sentence should
read "June 1", not "March 1". If I'm wrong and rules have changed,
then something is seriously messed up.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Election] Unqualified votes striking

Andrew Gray
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
On 05/07/07, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > The voter lists we sent to Software in the Public Interest (our third
> > party election partner) initially were wrong. There was a bug in the
> > edit counting program and the sent list contained every account with
> > 201 or more edits, instead of 400 or more edits.
>
> Wait. Did you simply misspeak above?   Is the situation only that the
> edit count criteria was misapplied and nothing has been changed from
> the official election rules.
>
> If that is the case then there is no problem, although more care is
> required in the communications sent.

I tihkn it's just confusion over where the cutoffs like - as I
understand it, the rules haven't changed, it's just that we
accidentally implemented them wrong the first time.

As for communication, oh, the joys of half of us speaking in a second
or third language...

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Election] Unqualified votes striking

Jesse (Pathoschild)
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
Gregory,

The eligibility requirement was not correctly applied by the software,
which thought the limit was 201 edits instead of 400 edits. The date
in her email is probably a typo, since March is the limit for how
young an account can be.

No rules were changed, and I rather doubt the election committee is
conspiring to forge the elections.

Yours cordially,
Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Election] Unqualified votes striking

Jan-Bart de Vreede
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
Hi Gregory.

Thanks for your remarks:

 >Is the situation only that the
 >edit count criteria was misapplied and nothing has been changed from
 > the official election rules?

Yep

Just to make sure everyone understands..

The rules have NOT changed AT ALL...

It is only the editcount rule (400 edits) which was accidentally applied at 201 the first time the list of possible voters was given to SPI. As you can see in the earlier announcement, this has now been corrected to reflect the official rules.

I would also like to point out that the members of the election
committee are currently spending a LOT of time on these elections and
that the foundation really appreciates all their hard work :)

Jan-Bart de Vreede
Vice-Chair Wikimedia Board of Trustees

PS: And also to repeat: NO ONE within the foundation (including members
of the board/advisory board) has access to the key needed to look at the
election results...




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Election] Unqualified votes striking

Gregory Maxwell
In reply to this post by Andrew Gray
On 7/5/07, Andrew Gray <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 05/07/07, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > > The voter lists we sent to Software in the Public Interest (our third
> > > party election partner) initially were wrong. There was a bug in the
> > > edit counting program and the sent list contained every account with
> > > 201 or more edits, instead of 400 or more edits.
> >
> > Wait. Did you simply misspeak above?   Is the situation only that the
> > edit count criteria was misapplied and nothing has been changed from
> > the official election rules.
> >
> > If that is the case then there is no problem, although more care is
> > required in the communications sent.
>
> I tihkn it's just confusion over where the cutoffs like - as I
> understand it, the rules haven't changed, it's just that we
> accidentally implemented them wrong the first time.
>
> As for communication, oh, the joys of half of us speaking in a second
> or third language...

The rule has been June 1, 2007 400 edits,  March 1, 2007 first edit. I
am quite sure of this.

There is a lot of confusion over the requirements ... and the election
com. sending out an email saying that 220 votes were stricken because
they did not have 400 edits before March 1st will certainly not help
things.

So long as the list of eligible voters has been determined in a manner
which is in accordance with the disclosed rules, it is a result which
is entirely derived from public data and could be reproduced by
anyone. As such the list should be made public, ideally on the day of
announcement, so that anyone interested can verify it.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Election] Unqualified votes striking

Jan-Bart de Vreede
Hi Gregory
>
> So long as the list of eligible voters has been determined in a manner
> which is in accordance with the disclosed rules, it is a result which
> is entirely derived from public data and could be reproduced by
> anyone. As such the list should be made public, ideally on the day of
> announcement, so that anyone interested can verify it.
>  
Yep, good idea, we will put that into the evaluation.

Jan-Bart de Vreede
Vice Chair Wikimedia Board of Trustees

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
12