Talk:Smartmatic/Archive 1

Company history?
This is interesting: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=589189 - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Voting fiasco in Cook County
The reason that prompted Rep. Maloney to request a CFIUS investigation into the ownership structure of Sequoia was a voting fiasco in primaries held in Chicago, where Sequoia machines, operated by Venezuelans, fail to perform adequately. In the words of Alderman Burke "at least 15 Venezuelans, who may not have been in the country legally, worked side-by-side with Chicago election officials on primary night March 21, which turned out to be a vote-counting nightmare." Alderman: Election Day troubles could be part of 'international conspiracy' There's plenty of evidence to prove the point, here's another sample Election officials OK with probeAlekboyd (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Mmhm. Rd232 talk 13:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Alderman Burke says at least 15 Venezuelans, who may not have been in the country legally, worked side-by-side with Chicago election officials on primary night March 21, which turned out to be a vote-counting nightmare. The argument that Sequoia was not involved in tabulation is factually incorrect.Alekboyd (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you could go with that vague statement. Or you could read a bit further: "The Venezualans were providing technical assistance, not tabulating votes, and the conspiracy theory is over the top, according to election officials and the company that provided the new equipment." Rd232 talk 19:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that Venezuelans took place in the tabulation is not vague, and seems to have caused a great deal of anxiety with some officials.Alekboyd (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "The Venezualans were providing technical assistance, not tabulating votes, and the conspiracy theory is over the top, according to election officials and the company that provided the new equipment."

Venezuelans in Chicago's Cook County voting fiasco
Look folks, referring specifically to JRSP and Rd232, I see no point in having this endless editing issues with you, but having said that I will not allow you to turn Venezuela related pages into a propaganda site for the political views you hold dear. You are entitled to your opinion as much as anybody else. However this is not your personal blog, and however much you want to impose your views and restrict counter information that's perfectly in tune with WP:RS guidelines, you will not succeed. There's already precedent of various other editors rejecting your interpretation of guidelines and policy Articles for deletion/Michael Shellenberger, which was also an attempt at blocking information casting Hugo Chavez and one of his lobbyists in what you consider a negative light. I could easily build a case about your continuous efforts over the years at using Wikipedia as a propaganda tool, and report you, however I do consider that your revisionism is necessary to provide balance. I can only hope you will agree with WP:NPOV.

Now with regards to Smartmatic, I am, in fact, the person who investigated and published, for the first time, the corporate structure of shell companies, behind which Smartmatic hides its true ownership. I have been in contact with the journalists that informed the authorities and general public about it. I have also had exchanges with some of the Chicago officials mentioned in the media. I know a great deal about this company and since I have no self-quoting pretensions, I can only contribute with information published according to WP:RS guidelines. In this respect, I will recourse to the New York Times:

''after a municipal primary election in Chicago in March, Sequoia voting machines were blamed for a series of delays and irregularities. '''Smartmatic’s new president, Jack A. Blaine, acknowledged in a public hearing that Smartmatic workers had been flown up from Venezuela to help with the vote. Some problems with the election were later blamed on a software component, which transmits the voting results to a central computer, that was developed in Venezuela'.U.S. Investigates Voting Machines’ Venezuela Ties

Now, I will respectfully ask you to observe Wikipedia policy and stop edit-warring.Alekboyd (talk) 10:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK... (a) you're the one WP:EDITWARring - you keep reinserting information which the main source we have contradicts. The source specifically says that according to election officials and Smartmatic, Smartmatic was not involved in tabulation, only in technical assistance. More general statements about Smartmatic being present (by Burke, and now by Blaine) cannot logically override this assertion: the more specific statement overrides the more general ones. Now if you have personal knowledge that makes you sure they were involved, that is extremely irrelevant (WP:OR), unless you get this published in a WP:RS. (b) what difference does it make whether they were involved in tabulation? I really don't care either way, as long as the information is verifiable, and I don't see why you do, it just doesn't seem that important. (c) some of your comments are personal attacks (WP:AGF). We clearly have differences of opinion and have both defended them strongly, but if anyone has been tendentious about including their point of view over the interests of the encyclopedia, I'd say it's you. But then I would think that wouldn't I? Let's just agree to differ and follow WP policy, OK? (d) you can ask for external input if you want - eg a request for comment. But if you don't have the sources to support your view this won't help you, and if you do, it's unnecessary. (e) I'm not going to express my opinion of Smartmatic because that's irrelevant; but if you want to add more WP:RS-sourced information about their corporate structure, that's fine by me. Rd232 talk 12:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The phrase "tallying of votes, in which Venezuelans were involved, was marred with problems" is a very vague statement: Were the problems a consequence of the presence on Venezuelans? Or is their presence a consequence of the problems? Is this just an irrelevant coincidence? However, when read in context, this addition reads as if the article were supporting Burke's "international conspiracy" theory. But the idea of a country trying to rig ***municipal*** elections in a foreign country is hardly plausible so Burke's extraordinary claim needs extraordinary sources and more notable adherents to deserve a detailed description. A fringe theory only held by a tiny minority does not belong in Wikipedia. JRSP (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's more than a vague statement, it's original research. Burke doesn't claim this, and neither does any other source we have; but the main source have explicitly contradicts it. Rd232 talk 15:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The NYT source has Blaine saying Venezuelans helped with the vote (no direct quote from Blaine, it's the NYT's words). This is far too vague to support alekboyd's thesis. Rd232 talk 11:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Chicago Election Board chairman Langdon Neal said he sees nothing wrong with 15 Venezuelans helping to count Chicago ballots because they provided "only technical support," and 100 election board employees were "sitting right next to them watching every move they made."Burke: Ballot snafu was conspiracy: Says potential there for Venezuelan firm to control U.S. elections

"The use of some 19,000 electronic voting machines in this city of Chicago and Cook County primary on March 21st of this year is now under intense scrutiny. The U.S. company that makes the machines, Sequoia, was bought in 2005 by Smartmatic, a private company primarily owned by Venezuelan businessmen. When Chicago had problems with the machines, a dozen Venezuelan employees were there to help with the election. Chicago officials are outraged."

"AVI RUBIN, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: The problem we're in right now is that we're using equipment to elect our president and our Congress, and our local officials, that cannot be audited, that are potentially under the control of foreign entities, and that are almost an ideal platform for rigging an election." Encore Presentation: Democracy at Risk

As can be seen, this is neither vague nor "alekboyd's thesis." Why would Smartmatic refuse to reveal its true ownership to CFIUS had what has been reported in the media been "vague"? For the record I do not expect you to agree with me, I am only asking you two to observe Wikipedia policies and stop editing out information that's verifiable.Alekboyd (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Smartmatic's ownership is irrelevant to this issue of fact as to whether they were involved in tabulation, as is most of what you've written in the comment above. What is relevant is this: "Chicago Election Board chairman Langdon Neal said he sees nothing wrong with 15 Venezuelans helping to count Chicago ballots because they provided "only technical support," and 100 election board employees were "sitting right next to them watching every move they made."Burke: Ballot snafu was conspiracy: Says potential there for Venezuelan firm to control U.S. elections Being involved in technical support (not tabulation) is what the article already says, though it doesn't note the 100 election board employees supervising. Rd232 talk 13:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well at least we agree on what is relevant: Venezuelans were part of the process, as admitted by all parties involved. And yet you continue to edit out that information. Why?Alekboyd (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if it was your concern that the tech support was partially provided by Venezuelans (which the sources support), why didn't you put that in the article? Done, and removed the tags in the assumption that this settles the matter. Rd232 talk 15:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But I did: ..."tallying of votes, in which Venezuelans were involved, was marred with problems..."Alekboyd (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Which implies something more than tech support, which the sources don't support, which is I why I removed it in favour of mentioning tech support only. Rd232 talk 18:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, this prose insinuates that the problems were caused by the Venezuelans. It must be rephrased to clarify and avoid the innuendo. JRSP (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You are reading too much into it asI was careful with the wording. The phrase does not say that Venezuelans *were* the cause of the problem, it merely states that they were *involved*, which all sources support, yet you both continue to interpret creatively. Alekboyd (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

For the record: Editor_assistance/Requests/Archive_47. Rd232 talk 22:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits - October 2016
I am here to explain recent edits. First, Smartmatic is a Venezuelan company according to multiple sources. Also, sources should not be deleted without an explanation like they have been.-- ZiaLater   ( talk ) 01:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Moved content
This content was moved from the main article page. It doesn't have much value as a generic list. It would be good if someone could identify an notable content and work them into body text as references.

- Electiontechnology (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Fast count stuns nation (Philippine Daily Inquirer, 2010)
 * US, EU hail democratic milestone of Philippine polls (abs-cbnNEWS.com, 2010)
 * Smartmatic Voting Solution Delivers Political Breakthrough in Venezuelan Referendum (Reuters, 2007)
 * |Latin CEO Summit to feature address by Latin America technology leader (HispanicMPR, 2006)
 * |A Fair and Square Vote in Venezuela (The Nation, 2006)
 * A Crucial Vote for Venezuela and a Company (New York Times, 2004)
 * | Smartmatic International Corporation (Business Week)
 * | Venezuela Vote Machines `Impossible to Manipulate,' Smartmatic Chief Says (Bloomberg)
 * | Comelec seals poll automation contract with Smartmatic-TIM (Computerworld Philippines)

About the Controversy section
This sentence in the controversy section may need to be removed.

"A lawyer who had worked with Rodríguez, Moisés Maiónica, was also employed by Smartmatic, providing legal and financial assistance that allowed it to provide voting systems for the 2004 elections. Both Rodríguez and Maiónica were central for Smartmatic's first major contract for the 2004 recall elections."

These sources state that Moisés Maionica never worked for Smartmatic. He worked for Cogent, another provider of the election commission, which is a competitor of Smartmatic:


 * Smartmatic niega vinculación con Maiónica


 * Myths about Smartmatic – who do they benefit

Also, the source for this sentence says “not found.” “Diosdado Cabello, a high ranking Venezuelan official, personally ordered for Anzola to be moved to better equipped hospital in Caracas following the incident. Multiple Venezuelan officials that included Jorge Rodríguez and Minister of Interior and Justice Ramón Rodríguez Chacín, who was related to Anzola,[99] accompanied Anzola on his death bed.[96]” I am curious as to where these statements came from because in researching this company I could not find anything that mentioned Cabello or Maiónica. If no one objects, I will remove the sentence about Maiónica and I will remove the sentence about Cabello. Thank you! Carriedelvalle23 (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Maionica, el bien conectado


 * Carriedelvalle23: (1) I have made the first citation clickable so that you can now read it. (2) Of the three citations you provided as refutation, the first two (a press release and a blog) are not admissible because they are not independent reliable sources, and the third source does say (if my Google translate is working properly) that Maiónica worked for Smartmatic. (3) In terms of Cabello, I just added a citation for the sentence you quoted. Softlavender (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC); edited 16:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Tag for unreliable source
Hi, just passing by to explain why I added a tag of [unreliable source?] and why I am asking for improving citation in this article (reference number 3 "Brownfield, William (10 July 2006)", which also appears in number 2 and other WP articles related to this organisation). While editing some references for this article I realize there is one reference cited (too) many times (at least 10 times in just one article) and it seems as a WP:QUESTIONABLE source. The problems I found with it are: there is no link to an article Verifiability and there are two links in the same reference to Wikipedia articles (Wikipedia is not a reliable source in itself). I am sorry, but I don’t fully understand the reference: is it a speech of an ambassador (Primary sources?), an opinion article authored by him (WP:RSOPINION); an official statement from the US State Department or, is it a WikiLeaks’ cable (Objectionable contents)?. In the latest case, then could someone please help us get other reliable sources that can back up all the facts cited in the article under this particular reference? Thank you, everyone!

Maybe I am wrong, but what I understand from the Verifiability guidelines is that “questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.” One solution might be to attribute these viewpoints to the ambassador (or the people who hold them) within the article and, giving some published references after it, so we all understand better where the information comes from. What do you think? Thanks! E-DemSnoopy (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It was from a communique from the Embassy of the United States, Caracas following investigations surrounding Smartmatic's background. It's reliable. Also, it's interesting how you suddenly began your new interest in Smartmatic so recently after creating your account.-- ZiaLater   ( talk ) 03:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your soon reply. Oh well then, if it is from an official communication from the Embassy (it should be very easy to find the link as a primary source -not to WP articles-), could you help improve the article with some links on published sources, so all the mentioned facts can be supported? It is important for the NPV and referencing quality. Thank you! Concerning your last comment, I am sorry but I have to say it sounds like a personal attack. Please, assume good faith of fellow editors as we are assuming it with you and the rest of the community. I am in fact a new WP editor, but as far as I understand I can edit since the beginning articles on any subject I am interest in. And yes, I got interested in Smartmatic and many other organisations and institutions working on e-Democracy. The more unbalanced I see an article, the more I will try to research and add references and content. It is how WP work, doesn't it? Thank you!E-DemSnoopy (talk) 12:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Not a problem, and I am only trying to protect the article from further COI edits. I can look for the page and try to add the links, though I read it through a database. With most physical sources like books, we can place the citations like that.-- ZiaLater   ( talk ) 03:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Smartmatic, a US incorporated company
My name is Ernesto, I work for Smartmatic, and I’d like to respond directly to  ZiaLater   ( talk ) recent inaccurate edits to the company’s page.

The fact that a media outlet echoes false information doesn’t make it true. The nationality of a company is not established by what the media says but rather by the country in which the organisation is incorporated. Smartmatic was incorporated in Delaware, United States of America. | 19:20, 08 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.Parisca (talk • contribs)


 * With Smartmatic operating in multiple countries in such a dubious manner, many reliable sources have reached a consensus that it is a Venezuelan entity.-- ZiaLater   ( talk ) 05:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * ZiaLater, I just published the best reference to validate Smartmatic was initially founded in 2000 in Delaware, USA: the incorporation certificate of the company. After that first registration, Smartmatic opened offices in more than 20 countries, so you will find subsidiaries in all of those countries. If you have a document to prove Smartmatic was founded elsewhere, please share it with the Wikipedia community. --Smmtt (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * By consensus?? Gee, where did you get your Law degree, if any? By that reasoning, you could also accuse any corporation, such as Procter & Gamble for instance, of operating "in a dubious manner", and that in your opinion, it could be by consensus "declared a Mexican company" (because it has a manufacturing & sales presence there, too, according to "reliable sources"). Splendid! Brilliant! What would happen to Wikipedia in the hands of "contributors" like this one? --AVM (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

COI edits
Two single-purpose users have recently began to whitewash this article. The activity was placed on a noticeboard and a COI tag has been placed in the article so other users may be advised to monitor potential COI behavior.-- ZiaLater   ( talk ) 05:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oddly enough, it appears that you (User:ZiaLater) are one of those "single-purpose" users. --AVM (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Aren't you retired? I have a lot of different interests in Latin America and particularly Venezuela due to all of the developments occurring there.-- ZiaLater   ( talk ) 10:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes. Indeed, I am a retired Grandpa. Please read my direct reply in your Talk page, covering matters not related to this article. --AVM (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Identifying country associated with company.
I have removed the description of the company as a Venezuelan company pending the outcome of a discussion that I started here. Unfortunately, the responses so far deal more with the location of the question than actual answers; if a consensus on the location is resolved I'll provide a new link but hopefully someone will weigh in regarding the substance.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Here is the response I gave in the other article which you asked for:
 * Well, there are dozens of sources that describe Smartmatic as a Venezuelan company (here are but a few). I tried to follow Verifiability and find what sources said about where the company was based, and Venezuelan company is what I found. The only reason that Smartmatic likes to distance itself from Venezuela is due to the controversy surrounding their work and elections there. My edits were whitewashed there by multiple Smartmatic users that were eventually blocked due to sock puppet edits. When investigations were made into the ownership of the company and its relationship to the Venezuelan government, Smartmatic denied investigation and eventually sold an acquisition to avoid such investigation. So, it is obvious why the company would devote users to cover its tracks on Wikipedia with sock puppets. This transcript of a CNN investigation states how Smartmatic is a Venezuelan company. The New York Times even stated that "the role of the young Venezuelan engineers who founded Smartmatic has become less visible in public documents as the company has been restructured into an elaborate web of offshore companies and foreign trusts", which is why you see that it is occasionally labeled as being from United Kingdom/Barbados or the Netherlands where they have subsidiaries. Shore is my short explanation as to why I put "Venezuelan multinational company"; it is because the multitude of sources stated it was Venezuelan and because it has subsidiaries spread internationally. The sources even pointed out how Smartmatic called itself Dutch even though it was Venezuelan, eliminating a debate of its origins since it is directly from the source and not a single Wikipedia user. The only reason there were conflicting edits in the first place was because Smartmatic users were editing the article and also one other user who stated themselves that they personally knew one of the founders of Smartmatic. Hopefully I explained this clearly enough...-- ZiaLater   ( talk ) 22:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think it would be POV to include that they were a Venezuelan company or not either since when is it a POV on whether or not a company is from one place or another? Sources mostly do the talking in this situation.-- ZiaLater   ( talk ) 22:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the discussion I started at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_189 Ddidn't reach a definitive conclusion, perhaps because it was the wrong place for such a discussion. However, it is quite clear that Wikipedia convention is that we associate companies with a country if they are based in or have primary headquarters in a country.

Smartmatic is neither based in nor headquartered in Venezuela.

It is true there are several sources that call it a Venezuelan company.. This is likely due to one source making the mistake and other lazy journalists copying the formulation without doing any investigation. Given that there are hundreds of reliable sources discussing this company many of which use other countries such as where it is headquartered I don't find it all persuasive to call it a Venezuelan company simply because a few sources make a mistake.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Removal of COI Tag
Whoever promoted a protest based in the WP:CoI and WP:Sock puppetry policies, prompting the intervention of a reputed Administrator, already attained his/her goal: some accounts got deleted, others banned, and other put into a watch. I've removed such tag, as it did its 'job' and is no longer necessary.

But no one seems to have noticed, or cared about, that behind the above initiative and numerous disparaging edits, "sourced" with untraceable & unverifiable "citations", evidently lies a deliberate, ill-intentioned resolve to damage the reputation of a Corporation, its motives unknown. This has happened repeatedly since the article was created, and probably will go on in the future. The time and energy devoted by some stubborn editors to construct clever and harmful edits are simply astonishing.

Today I cleaned the article of some spurious, fake or improper "citations" which are nothing but noise just created to make an impression, often having no connection whatsoever with the "referenced" text (for example, citing an U.S. Ambassador that was appointed in the American Embassy in Venezuela as the "author" of a document purportedly disclosing sensitive facts about Smartmatic-- but the provided links lead nowhere, making the repeated citations unverifiable), or are based on unreputed sources, but disguised as reputed journals or newspapers, whithout the courtesy of warning WP readers that such references are in Spanish language, forcing them to believe the citation is valid. Along other petty items cleaned, of course there were some disparaging texts based in such false "citations".

Sadly, it seems there's no other tag resembling the COI tag-- but addressing instead destructive or harmful behaviors on the part of some editors, oblivious to the meaning of "neutral point of view". Its text could recite instead "A major contributor to this article appears to have a negative intention toward its subject."

Regards, --AVM (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * If anything, place a POV tag, but do not remove a COI tag and sourced information when you were part of the COI/sockpuppet investigation as well, since you admitted to being a personal friend of the CEO of Smartmatic. That right there makes your editing on this article somewhat suspicious. I would recommend not participating in an article when you have a relationship with someone in it. The talk page is a great place to discuss concerns though. I personally don't have any relation to this company and am adding sources and updated information surrounding its implementation of its technology. I placed the sources to speak for themselves. When someone who participates with a supposed personal connection, then it becomes them speaking for themselves instead of having the sources do it. What is even more interesting is the amount of accounts that are still being created just to edit this article. COI tag should remain for some time until controversies can be resolved.-- ZiaLater   ( talk ) 21:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment The COI tag shouldn't be removed unilaterally. If there is a dispute about removing the tag, post at WP:COIN so that other editors can help out and decide. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Any discussions?
Created this here if anyone has concerns with some of the content in this article. I read how some have concerns with the founding date. In the sources, it has stated that it was founded in 1997 in Venezuela while it was later incorporated in the United States in 2000. Despite this establishment in the US, most employees were still in Venezuela. Any other concerns?-- ZiaLater   ( talk ) 06:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

All sources I have found list 2000 as the founding date. It is also already listed as the founding date in the infobox. Can you provide other sources that state the company was founded in 1997 and not 2000? Carriedelvalle23 (talk) 07:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I changed the date back to 2000 because all sources I found, even the current sources supporting that date say 2000.

Additional sources
I've come upon some new sources and I thought I'd add them here:
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20060615053308/http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/14194451.htm
 * https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/itl/vote/SequoiaSmartmaticReport61208.pdf

-- Softlavender (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, the Miami Herald source shows how they originated from Caracas in the 1990s. I'll take a better look at them and see how they can be used.-- ZiaLater   ( talk ) 00:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Edits and content
Does ZiaLater have a point of view on Smartmatic? ZiaLater discredited me and my edits simply because I live in the Philippines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Smartmatic..._again.2C_again.). In addition, ZiaLater has demonstrated he/she acts as the owner of this page dictating what edits are approved and not approved. ZiaLater states he/she has a fear the page will be “whitewashed” although the only editor doing any “washing” to the page is ZiaLater. Contributing facts to the article are not whitewashing. Edits such as listing the wrong founding year, reverting to incorrect facts, and removing government documents as sources does sound like whitewashing. ZiaLater, has demonstrated tendentious behaviors such as edit warring, disruptive editing, and deleting edits. There is no rule that states editors must gain permission from ZiaLater before editing this article. Aside from the incorrect content, this conduct is inappropriate and brings to question ZiaLater’s motives behind editing this article. The edits I made were supported by factual sources including government documents(https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/04CARACAS922_a.html), archived articles(http://puzkas.com/maquinas-votacion-revocatorio/), and other online news publications. ZiaLater reverted the article back to his/her version without any explanation. I believe other editors should review ZiaLater’s edits to this article and ZiaLater’s intentions/ point of view should be investigated. ZiaLater’s conduct aside, I want to see a page based on facts, and accuracy. ZiaLater doesn’t want other edits contributing to this article, yet he/she cannot explain the inaccuracies. Could I get another set of eyes on this article and this editor’s behavior?Carriedelvalle23 (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Please stick to discussing edits and content rather than other editors. I have changed the title of this section to remove the reference to another editor. Wikileaks should not be used as a source. If you would like to use that other link as a source, ask about it here on the talk page and establish WP:CONSENSUS about it. Softlavender (talk) 08:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

This query is regarding the accuracy of this article. Since ZiaLater continues reverting to inaccurate edit without providing an explanation, his/her conduct and intentions are in question. Here is an explanation of the recent edits I made. Also, if WikiLeaks cannot be used as a source why does this link (https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06CARACAS2063_a.html) appear to be sourced frequently throughout the article? Carriedelvalle23 (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not involved in the editing of this article. I am assisting some of the formatting on this talk page, and in that capacity I am going to divide up these queries into manageable subthreads so that interested editors can respond to them one at a time. Softlavender (talk) 04:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit 1
“In 2000, three Venezuelan engineers, Antonio Mugica, Alfredo José Anzola and Roger Piñate founded Smartmatic in a "tiny office" in Caracas, Venezuela after working in a research lab.[4][5][6][7]” Here are sources to support that the company was founded in 2000 and that José Anzola’s last name is not Angola. These sources also support that three Venezuelan engineers founded the company. “Founded in 2000, Smartmatic has transformed elections around the world by guaranteeing total integrity of the electoral process from registration, to vote count, all the way to results proclamation, backed by unrivalled technology and project management.”
 * Smartmatic parent firm reorganized

“Founded in 2000, Smartmatic has grown into a global business…”

Supporting the correct spelling of Alfred Anzola, “Smartmatic's owners are Antonio Mugica, Alfredo Anzola, and Roger Pinate, young Venezuelan computer engineers who went to the U.S. several years ago to make it in business.”
 * SGO, world’s largest elections tech firm, launched


 * Venezuela’s Automated Voting System: Under Fire But Moving Forward

--Carriedelvalle23 (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit 2
“In 2003, Smartmatic responded to a bid process initiated by the CNE. Smartmatic formed the SBC Consortium in the third quarter of 2003, prior to bidding. The SBC was comprised of Smartmatic, Venezuelan state telecommunications organization CANTV and a Florida engineering company, Bizta.”

Sources to support that it was a bid process not that Smartmatic approached the government:


 * Smartmatic calcula que hubo un ahorro de US$ 20 millones
 * The Smartmatic-Bizta-Cantv Offer
 * E-Voting Case Law: A Comparative Analysis
 * Information Services, Latin America, Volume 59

This document form the Embassy Caracas states “The National Electoral Council (CNE) on February 16 awarded the concession for a new automated voting system to the SBC Consortium.”
 * Venezuela’s Automated Voting System: Under Fire But Moving Forward

Sources to support that Bizta was not a Bolivarian Government of Venezuela affiliated company:
 * A Crucial Vote for Venezuela and a Company
 * Information Services, Latin America, Volume 59

I removed the percentages because the sources provided led to nowhere and the correct percentage information could not be found.

--Carriedelvalle23 (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit 3
Also, the bid process is stated under the 2004 Venezuela recall referendum[edit source]. This paragraph states that Smartmatic took part in the bid process so why did the history say “In 2003, Smartmatic approached the Venezuelan government and formed the SBC organization that was owned 51% by Smartmatic, 47% Venezuelan state telecommunications organization CANTV and by a Bolivarian Government of Venezuela affiliated company, Bizta.[5][7]”?

I removed the percentages under the paragraph “2004 Venezuelan recall referendum” because those numbers could not be sourced.

--Carriedelvalle23 (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit 4
I moved the information about Bizta to the controversy section and included fact based information. Bizta, is a separate company from Smartmatic so it should not be listed in the history section of the topic which the article is about.

“Before Bizta was invited to be part of the SBC Consortium, the company had received a $150,000 loan from FONCREI, the equivalent of the ‘US Small Business Administration’ in Venezuela. As collateral for loan, Industrial Credit Fund received a 28% non-permanent equity position and placed a member of Venezuela's science ministry, Omar Montilla, on its board of directors. Bizta repaid the capital loan one year after receiving it and Omar Montilla stepped down from the board.”

Sources to support this information:


 * Bizta Buys Out Foncrei Share
 * A Crucial Vote for Venezuela and a Company Carriedelvalle23 (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)--Carriedelvalle23 (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I posted this query regarding the section about Bizta nearly 1 month ago. No one has expressed dissatisfaction with this edit, therefore I will move this to the controversy section. Thank you! Carriedelvalle23 (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

An overall response
I think a concern of some users here is that they cannot see some of the sources and their content. Some sources were added from old articles and newspapers in a database. I can see if I can add quotes to these sources once I have access to this database.-- ZiaLater   ( talk ) 22:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

before you revert the edits I made, can you take your own advice and discuss these edits on the talk page as I have done? If you feel your edits are justified, please explain them and provide the appropriate sources. In case you missed it, each edit is explained above with several sources. I am happy to answer any questions you have about these changes.Carriedelvalle23 (talk) 07:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * NOTE: Carriedelvalle23, it's been three days, and I don't see that anyone has specifically rebutted any of your specific requested edits above. So I think if you make the edits one at a time (not all in the same edit, but each one in a separate edit), and add the visible citations that you listed for each, that would be consistent with WP:BRD and WP:DISCUSSFAIL. If anyone objects to either the edit(s) or the citations, they will need to make their case in response to you in the specific section above regarding the edit in question. That's my current take, anyway. Softlavender (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender Thank you for separating each edit on this page. Also, thank you for your suggestions to editing this article. I appreciate your help in this process. Carriedelvalle23 (talk) 07:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The last edit was good. DIdn't notice the spelling error. Thanks!-- ZiaLater   ( talk ) 04:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

can you explain the recent edit you made adding that Smartmatic is owned by Venezuelan families? Are there additional sources to back this up? Carriedelvalle23 (talk) 07:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll look but it is often cited that the company is "Venezuelan". There was a discussion in a previous talk section that said it was difficult to point exactly if it were a Venezuelan, Dutch, British or American company, so we settled for multinational. But with Smartmatic saying themselves that it is owned by "Venezuelan families", I figured it would be appropriate. But I'll look for another source as well. :)-- ZiaLater   ( talk ) 20:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My recent edit that did not have a comment was surrounding the ownership. Hopefully that clears things up. -- ZiaLater   ( talk ) 23:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

shouldn’t the nationality of the individual owners be listed under a separate section titled “Ownership”? In researching this topic, I found that the Mugica Family is also Spanish, and Alfredo Anzola is half French. The Massa Family is also French. Also, the sources listed do not say Smartmatic is “owned by Venezuelan families”. I will remove this if no one objects and it can be moved to a new section.Carriedelvalle23 (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

it’s not whitewashing when you are correcting errors in a Wikipedia article. It’s a simple fact, Wikipedia is a collaborative community based upon proper sourcing of information. If it doesn’t have a credible source, don’t place it in the article. As I have stated in the past, I am a journalist researching many topics and realized much of the information on this specific article is incorrect. Many of the sources lead to dead links or simply do not exist. Prior to making the edits I posted in the talk page asking you to comment. My goal is to remove incorrect information and provide factual citations to support the information listed. I do not appreciate you attacking me and reverting my edits without explanation. I asked you to explain sources and you did not. Each of the edits I made are explained and backed up by multiple credible sources. I want to understand why you continue reverting edits without explanation or proper sources. Per Wikipedia guidelines, it is best to explain why you revert edits. Reverting edits and trying to run away other editors if harmful to Wikipedia and does not support the collaborative community. As I have pointed out in the past, no one owns any article on Wikipedia. Other editors are encouraged to edit as they feel necessary. Per Wikipedia guidelines, “any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.” Also, sated under the guidelines, “Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. It is inappropriate behavior for an online encyclopedia.” Carriedelvalle23 (talk) 09:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, and, you are both at fault here. , CDV clearly enumerated her four intended edits in the section above, and invited you to comment or rebut them. You did nothing of the sort, so she made some of those edits and you then wiped them all out and accused her of whitewashing. This is a violation on your part of WP:BRD and a classic example of WP:DISCUSSFAIL, not to mention WP:PA. Carriedelvalle23, the date and narrative of the origin of the company that ZiaLater replaced your edits with is fully supported by viewable reliable citations, so you should not be changing that back. Both of you need to start talking to each other clearly and neutrally rather than avoiding each other and edit warring. If you both continue to behave in this dysfunctional manner I will report both of you, and this article, for administrative oversight. Softlavender (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Honestly, this talk page is so cluttered that I couldn't find any discussions but the old ones. I tried to clean up the wording and that got reverted. Not trying to edit war at all. Sorry for getting you involved.-- ZiaLater   ( talk ) 20:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Going forward, you need to respond to Carriedelvalle23 when she makes edit proposals on this talk page. Failing to do so, and then attacking her when she makes those proposed edits and directs you to the talk page proposals in her edit summaries, and then edit warring with her, is a violation of WP:BRD and various other Wikipedia practices. She had already pinged you and politely asked you to engage in the discussion above but you ignored her: . -- Softlavender (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Understood. I haven't been getting pings lately and only came here after you pinged me with the "" template.-- ZiaLater   ( talk ) 23:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for pointing that out. WP:PINGs only work if you sign the post with four tildes at the same time. Carriedelvalle23, if you forget to sign your post as you did here, the person does not a get a notification of your attempted ping. Nor will signing the post later rectify the problem. Softlavender (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits - July 2017
The recent edits you made are removing cited material. Smartmatic itself has said that their employees (majority of them Venezuelan) are the owners of the company, hence it is owned, as properly cited, by "Venezuelan families". Also, the group which later became Smartmatic was formed in 1997 and Smartmatic was officially founded in 2000. I tried to clear this up with better wording which you quickly reverted. I don't understand why you keep trying to remove this information. Can you explain?-- ZiaLater   ( talk ) 20:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * ZiaLater on July 12th I asked you “shouldn’t the nationality of the individual owners be listed under a separate section titled “Ownership”? In researching this topic, I found that the Mugica Family is also Spanish, and Alfredo Anzola is half French. The Massa Family is also French. Also, the sources listed do not say Smartmatic is “owned by Venezuelan families.” I will remove this if no one objects and it can be moved to a new section.”


 * You did not object or comment at all on my query, therefore I removed it. Once again, I am asking you, can you provide other sources that directly state “owned by Venezuelan families”? The sources you listed do not say that. Rather the first source states, “It is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Smartmatic International has a significant amount of Venezuelan investment.”


 * However, there is no mention of Smartmatic being “owned by Venezuelan families.”


 * The second source you cited also says nothing about Smartmatic being owned by Venezuelan families. It says “Stoller said the company is 97 percent owned by the four Venezuelan founders -- two of them dual citizens: Mugica (Spanish and Venezuelan), Anzola, Roger Piñate and Jorge Massa (French and Venezuelan). The remainder of the company, Stoller said, is owned ``by employees of Smartmatic (past and present) and family and acquaintances of the founders.”


 * While this source states the company is 97 percent owned by the four founders, it also states two of the four founders are dual citizens, contradicting that statement you say that Smartmatic is owned by Venezuelan families. Since this source explains that some of the owners are dual citizen, perhaps the specifics of each founder’s nationality should be specified on their individual Wikipedia articles, not on the company’s article.


 * The third source you provided states “Smartmatic has disclosed, he said, that its owners are families in Venezuela.” This source also does not say “owned by Venezuelan families.”


 * An explanation for the edit “Founded in 2000” was posted two weeks ago. You never reputed the edit, therefore I proceeded.


 * Here is an explanation of that edit once again.
 * “In 2000, three Venezuelan engineers, Antonio Mugica, Alfredo José Anzola and Roger Piñate founded Smartmatic in a "tiny office" in Caracas, Venezuela after working in a research lab.[4][5][6][7]” Here are sources to support that the company was founded in 2000. “Founded in 2000, Smartmatic has transformed elections around the world by guaranteeing total integrity of the electoral process from registration, to vote count, all the way to results proclamation, backed by unrivalled technology and project management.”


 * Smartmatic parent firm reorganized
 * “Founded in 2000, Smartmatic has grown into a global business…”
 * SGO, world’s largest elections tech firm, launched
 * Venezuela’s Automated Voting System: Under Fire But Moving Forward


 * Also, some of your sources were removed because they were WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks cannot be used as sources. Carriedelvalle23 (talk) 08:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Carriedelvalle23, your talkpage posts are very hard to read. Please go back and nest your post properly by using one more colon than the post you are replying to. No one wants to read or reply to you unless you do that. Second, if you are quoting something with references on Wikipedia, post the text from the editing window (the wiki text) so that the references you are using are visible. Again, no one is going to want to read or reply to you unless you do that. Softlavender (talk) 08:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Softlavender, noted on that. Adding the quote for the said edit I am referring to. Thanks for the help. Carriedelvalle23 (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, the nesting is correct now. However your requests are still unclear. What you need to do is focus on one sentence at a time. Copy and paste the current wiki text ( not the plain text ) along with the citations, of that single sentence. And then under it propose your rewrite, in wiki text, with properly formatted citations. Do not ask many questions or make many assertions at one time in one talkpage post. Get an answer to one proposal before you propose another change. Softlavender (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Founding
Original Entry:

In 1997, three Venezuelan engineers, Antonio Mugica, Alfredo José Anzola and Roger Piñate, began collaborating in a group – which would later become Smartmatic – while working in a "tiny office" in Caracas, Venezuela after meeting in a research lab. Using "the research and development department of Panagroup Corp." in Venezuela, where Mugica was director of the organization, the trio created a system where thousands of inputs could be placed into a network simultaneously. Following the 2000 United States presidential election, the Venezuelans proposed to dedicate the system toward electoral functions.

After researching the citations supporting the founding location, I found that none of the sources stated the company was founded “in a "tiny office" in Caracas, Venezuela.”

Rather, source 3, stated “founded by Venezuelans with offices in Boca Raton, Florida.” Also, none of the sources mention how the founders met. So, I found sources that explain how the founders met each other. Here is a list of all the sources I found which explain where the company was founded and how the founders knew one another. Please let me know if anyone has any questions about this and I will make this edit.


 * E-Voting, Courtesy of Venezuela?


 * Venezuela seen as a testing ground


 * Electronic Voting Was Easy Enough… Why Do I Feel Uneasy


 * Another detail CNE forgot to disclose


 * A Crucial Vote for Venezuela and a Company


 * E-Voting Courtesy of Venezuela?


 * Oakland e-voting firm focus of probe

Carriedelvalle23 (talk) 10:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Venezuela polling machines owned by Chavez and were predicted vulnerable
 * What is clear from the sources is that 1. Smartmatic is owned by Venezuelans/Venezuelan families and 2. Smartmatic was organized in 1997 and founded in 2000. There should be no confusion. I think you are looking into the wording too much . The owners may be dual citizens, but they are recognized as Venezuelans first in the majority of sources. Some were even related to Venezuelan government officials. Also, Wikileaks sources should have been fixed and from secondary sources.-- ZiaLater   ( talk ) 11:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , please go back and nest your post properly by using one more colon than the post you are replying to. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Current Entry:


 * In 1997, three Venezuelan engineers, Antonio Mugica, Alfredo José Anzola and Roger Piñate, began collaborating in a group – which would later become Smartmatic – while working in a "tiny office" in Caracas, Venezuela after meeting in a research lab.


 * The first source is sourcing an archived Smartmatic site. That site also states “In 2000 we realized the true impact of our technology in the growing device-networking market, and we emerged as an independent company.” So, while the founders were working together in 1997, Smartmatic was not founded until 2000. If we are going to use Smartmatic’s website as a source, smartmatic.com states the company was founded in 2000.


 * Proposed Edit:
 * In 2000, three Venezuelan engineers, Antonio Mugica, Alfredo José Anzola, and Roger Piñate, founded Smartmatic in Boca Raton, Florida. Mugica and Anzola were childhood friends and all three founders were recent engineering school graduates. The trio began developing hyper secure technologies in the late 1990’s although Smartmatic was not incorporated until 2000.


 * Sources:
 * E-Voting, Courtesy of Venezuela?


 * Venezuela seen as a testing ground


 * Electronic Voting Was Easy Enough… Why Do I Feel Uneasy


 * Another detail CNE forgot to disclose


 * A Crucial Vote for Venezuela and a Company


 * E-Voting Courtesy of Venezuela?


 * Oakland e-voting firm focus of probe


 * Venezuela polling machines owned by Chavez and were predicted vulnerable


 * can you point to the source that says Smartmatic is owned by Venezuelan families? The wording as it pertains to this sentence is very important because saying “Smartmatic is owned by Venezuelan families” is much different than what your first source states which is “has a significant amount of Venezuelan investment.” The edit regarding the founding year and location is listed below. Carriedelvalle23 (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Carriedelvalle23, please go back and place inline citations, in the proper places, inside your proposed edit. Use ref codes, and then under the proposed text add the template . I have done that for the existing cited texts above, but you will need to do it for your proposed text after adding actual citations to it. Softlavender (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I think the wording is fairly clear as it is now. The current section, explaining everything in chronological order instead of backtracking to the 1990s in later sentences, makes more sense and is more detailed. Plus it says clearly that they were founded in 2000 later in the section. Not sure why hiding the year 1997 edit is a priority in this article.--  ZiaLater   ( talk ) 21:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * There has been no opposition to this proposed edit so I have made the changes. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you! Carriedelvalle23 (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Proposed Edit:
 * In 2000, three Venezuelan engineers, Antonio Mugica, Alfredo José Anzola, and Roger Piñate, founded Smartmatic in Boca Raton, Florida. Mugica and Anzola were childhood friends and all three founders were recent engineering school graduates.    The trio began developing hyper secure technologies in the late 1990’s although Smartmatic was not incorporated until 2000.


 * The citations provided do not support the proposed text; and much of the proposed text does not have substantiating inline citations. Moreover, the first citation is not a reliable independent third-party source. Softlavender (talk) 04:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

July 18, 2017 Edit
Current Entry:

Smartmatic (also referred as Smartmatic Corp. or Smartmatic International) is a multinational company owned by Venezuelan families that specializes in technology solutions aimed at governments.

New Entry:

Smartmatic (also referred as Smartmatic Corp. or Smartmatic International) is a multinational company  that specializes in technology solutions aimed at governments.

Explanation:

None of the sources cited for “owned by Venezuelan families" said Smartmatic is owned by Venezuelan families. I left the citations and edited that information to be more accurate. To see a full explanation, refer to the “Recent Edits” section on this talk page. Carriedelvalle23 (talk) 10:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I have reverted your edit because you did not get WP:CONSENSUS for it beforehand. Please re-read the quotations from the citations. They all note that the owners are Venezuelan. I would change "Venezuelan families" to "Venezuelans". Softlavender (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * , I can agree with that but will just change the wording a little bit.-- ZiaLater   ( talk ) 21:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm not sure. It is primarily owned by "Venezuelan families" (Mugica - CEO and his cousin, Anzola, etc.), so that's accurate. The remainder is owned by employees.-- ZiaLater   ( talk ) 00:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I posted this edit on the 18th and there was no objection to the proposed edit so I proceeded assuming consensus. Also, two of the owners, as stated in the second source are dual citizens Mugica (Spanish and Venezuelan), Anzola, Roger Piñate and Jorge Massa (French and Venezuelan). So, it would be incorrect to say Smartmatic is owned by Venezuelans as not all the owners are solely Venezuelan. I will change this edit back unless there is a source provided that clearly states “Smartmatic is owned by Venezuelan families.” Thank you! Carriedelvalle23 (talk) 09:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * , you posted these edits on July 11 and they were reverted because there was no talkpage consensus and you had removed cited information. Then you re-posted the same edits on July 18, still with no consensus. And further, you are now currently edit-warring to shoehorn in your proposed edits. I am going to post an edit-warring notice on your talk page. You must gain WP:CONSENSUS for any proposed change to the article here on the talk page before you make it. If no one has responded to you, that does not equate to consensus. If you continue this sort of behavior, I will report you so an administrator's notice board for edit-warring and for tendentious editing. Softlavender (talk) 03:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * , the source states "the company is 97 percent owned by the four Venezuelan founders -- two of them dual citizens". It does not say "the company is 97 percent owned by a Spanish man, French man and two Venezuelans". Also, there is a source that directly states "Smartmatic has disclosed, he said, that its owners are families in Venezuela". You cannot just "assume consensus", so I reverted your edits. I've tried to reword edits you were concerned with multiple times to the best of my abilities, trying to make them the slightest bit more neutral and instead you always opt to just remove the material. Is there a reason for this when the information provided is neutral and supported by reliable sources?-- ZiaLater   ( talk ) 12:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for working with me on the wording of the first sentence. I appreciate your help in making this article more accurate! Carriedelvalle23 (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * and, please indent your posts one more colon than the post you are replying to (not the last post in the thread). I am still having to do this for both of you. Softlavender (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * , I was responding to the "assume consensus" edit, so I think I indented correctly. I'll still try to keep my eye on this talk page and do my best to perform orderly replies, though.-- ZiaLater   ( talk ) 07:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you indented as if you were responding to my post rather than Carriedelvalle23's ; I had to correct your indentation for you: . -- Softlavender (talk) 08:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

First Election
Current Entry:

In 2002, a Venezuelan start-up Bizta Corp. which was co-founded by Smartmatic CEO Antonio Mugica was losing money with "barely a sales deal to its name" and was given a $150,000 "loan" from the Venezuelan government. A year later in 2003, Smartmatic responded to a bid process initiated by the CNE for the 2004 Venezuela recall election. Smartmatic formed the SBC Consortium in the third quarter of 2003, prior to bidding. The SBC was comprised of Smartmatic, Bizta, and the Venezuelan state-run telecommunications organization CANTV. The SBC Consortium deal was notarized by then-Vice President José Vicente Rangel's daughter in Caracas. The deal with Bizta required the Venezuelan government to own 28% of Smartmatic and placed a member of Venezuela's science ministry, Omar Montilla, on Smartmatic's board of directors.

Proposed Edit:

In 2003, Smartmatic responded to a bid process initiated by the CNE for the 2004 Venezuela recall election.

The SBC was comprised of Smartmatic, Compañia Anónima Nacional Teléfonos de Venezuela (CANT) (the Venezuelan major telecommunications operator, partially owned by Verizon) and Bitza (a Venezuelan software developer).

Before Bizta was invited to be part of the SBC Consortium, the company had received a $150,000 loan from FONCREI,   the equivalent of the ‘US Small Business Administration’ in Venezuela. “As collateral for the loan, Industrial Credit Fund received a 28% non-permanent equity position” and placed a member of Venezuela's science ministry, Omar Montilla, on its board of directors. Bizta repaid the capital loan one year after receiving it and Omar Montilla stepped down from the board.


 * Carriedelvalle23, please go back and place inline citations, in the proper places, inside your proposed edit. Use ref codes, and then under the proposed text add the template . Softlavender (talk) 10:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * added the template. Thank you for the reminders. Carriedelvalle23 (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Again,, you are whitewashing most information related to the Venezuelan government. If it were not for the Venezuelan government investment, Smartmatic would not be in the position it is today. Where is the source that states that FONCREI is "the equivalent of the ‘US Small Business Administration’ in Venezuela"? The wife of Didalco Bolívar, a pro-Chávez governor, was also the president of FONCREI at the time and awarded Bizta the loan so that could possibly be mentioned. Omar Castillo, the Chávez government official who was a member of the Secretary of the President and Chief of the Council of Ministers, was also made director of Bizta in 2003 prior to the election. Also, the repayment of the loan is mentioned further down in the section that is currently in the article, though this loan wasn't repaid until a month before the election, with the current position being chronologically correct. Hope I replied correctly and I apologize if I didn't. --  ZiaLater   ( talk ) 23:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * No, you did NOT indent correctly -- your reply was indented to reply to me rather than to Carriedelvalle23. I have fixed it for you now. Use one more colon than the post you are replying to. Check "Show preview" before you click "Save changes" to ensure you have done this properly. If you would like me to give a graphic example on your talk page, let me know. Softlavender (talk) 02:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * , you cannot simply remove cited information. Please stop this nonsense or you will be reported to administrators and topic-banned from this article. Softlavender (talk) 01:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * In addition,, your citations do not substantiate the text you are attempting to add (I have marked up your proposal accordingly), and press releases are not neutral independent third-party sources and should not be used as citations. Softlavender (talk) 02:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 August 2017
Please add under the "2012 Venezuelan presidential election" subtitle this new one regarding the latest venezuelan election which has already its own wikipedia page, which I reference on the edit:

2017 Venezuelan Constitutional Assembly election

Main article: Venezuelan Constitutional Assembly election, 2017

Smartmatic provided the voting machines and system for this Venezuelan electoral process, which seeks to elect 537 officials of a new assembly that would rewrite the country's constitution. This election was held on July 30. Two days later, on August 2nd, Smartmatic CEO Antonio Mugica stated on a press briefing in London "We know, without a doubt, that the result of the recent elections for a National Constituent Assembly were manipulated," and added "We estimate that the difference between actual and announced participation by the authorities is at least one million votes." Davidagnin1986 (talk) 01:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done by . jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Request edit on 6 August 2017
The citation #12 is misrepresented in the text of the "2004 Venezuelan Recall Election" and the "2005 Venezuela parliamentary election" Section. Here is the only mention in the source article: "One study obtained the data log from the CANTV network and supposedly proved that the Smartmatic machines were bi-directional and, in fact, showed irregularities in how they reported their results to the CNE central server during the referendum.

(Note: The most suspicious data point in the Smartmatic system was that the machines contacted the server before printing their results, providing the opportunity, at least, to change the results and defeat the rudimentary checks set up by international observation missions. Since August 2004, the CNE has not repeated this practice.) These somewhat conspiratorial reports, perhaps, serve to breathe life into a defeated opposition, but have never proved conclusively the fraud." http://www.manilatimes.net/us-caracas-embassy-smartmatic-is-a-riddle/232249/ The bulk of the article, including this section, comprise the text of a public statement from the US embassy, which was hostile to and critical of the government at the time. Whoever added this text originally must have been very confused, or willfully misrepresenting the most negative source they could find in order to build a narrative of election fraud where the evidence was not there. The Carter Center monitored the elections and their findings were not only exhaustive, but paint a much better picture of the elections: https://www.cartercenter.org/documents/1820.pdf (tl;dr: vote discrepancies with machines were on the level of human error, with most machines only being suspected by exit polling of 1-2 votes being wrong, and the discrepancies showed no bias toward either candidate) More bizarre is the claim, in the 2006 section, that potential security risks resulted in low voter turnout, and subsequently in the results of the 2006 election. Again, the article which is primarily comprised of a US embassy statement is the single source for this claim, and again, the data don't reflect that narrative, and anyways the US embassy and its statement don't support this speculation, and should never be used as a reliable source if they had speculated in such a way. The main article on that election is far more balanced - showing that those machines were not even used due to the concerns, in an agreement brokered by the OAS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_parliamentary_election,_2005

The sections that rely on the US embassy source should be removed or reworked to reflect the less assertive claims of the US embassy, and they should be represented as criticism by a hostile entity. Election observers like the Carter Center should be cited regarding concerns, and speculation regarding the reason for certain electoral outcomes should be eliminated or moved to the "Criticism" section where it belongs. -Dean dfsayers@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.19.145 (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed that the same article is being used as a source for a number of other claims (it is citation # 12 in the wiki article). All of these should be checked for accordance with the US embassy statements (as the above notably do no agree with the same) and should be treated with less assertive language. Contrary to what the editor in the previous talk section claims, a private embassy cable citing unspecified (perhaps secret) studies to support its own speculation is not a reliable source to support the inclusion of more assertive speculation in a Wikipedia article. The cables and their intrigue are actually a very interesting resource, but they should be represented correctly for what they are. They are not claims to fact in the way that the authors of this wiki article have treated them, and without providing their own, less biased source material, they should be treated as reliable only as a critical point of view of the elections. -Dean — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.19.145 (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Updated with more sources. Will find more if needed.-- ZiaLater   ( talk ) 06:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Removal of source
Source 31 leads to a blank article, therefore this information cannot be properly cited. From a brief glance at the rest of the sources, none of the other articles support this information. So, it’s best to delete it unless you can come up with one-three factual and reliable sources stating otherwise. Shelbyhoward423 (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Shelbyhoward423, do not ever remove cited information from an article. Even if a citation is dead, it is still a citation. Also, there are numerous ways to find a readable copy of any dead-link citation. Softlavender (talk) 23:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * , this is why I archived some sources. Is this article still protected? I thought it was protected in this edit.-- ZiaLater   ( talk ) 17:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Look at the expiration date, and also look at the level of protection. Softlavender (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops, I was off -- it is still on 30/500 extended confirmed protection. Softlavender (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia editing guidelines, “Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines require all information to be citable to sources. When information is unsourced, and it is doubtful any sources are available for the information, it can be boldly removed.” This information is not reliably sourced as the publisher has clearly removed this article. I also checked the other sources and this statement is not stated. Therefore, I removed it, which I am allowed to do as an editor. If you believe this information is factual, perhaps you can provide another source. Otherwise, it is best if it is removed. Shelbyhoward423 (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Shelbyhoward423, do not ever remove cited information from an article. Even if a citation is dead, it is still a citation. Also, there are numerous ways to find a readable copy of any dead-link citation. Softlavender (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * , do you find it curious that this account was created a couple of weeks after the 30/500 extended confirmed protection of this page, and that they waited till they had amassed 530 edits (mostly date-format change edits of one byte each) before they edited (or involved themselves in any way with) this page? And that their edit to this article was to remove negative material? And that their barrage of dozens of edits per day has stopped? Softlavender (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * , I'm curious as well. Also, this is pretty interesting. Not sure what to make of all of this...-- ZiaLater   ( talk ) 03:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Questionable Edits
Let me begin by stating I expect my account will likely be attacked and banned for posting this, as the protocol in this talk page is to abuse editors when someone disagrees with the questions they ask or the edits they make. Nevertheless, I bring up these concerns because until now, I have never seen such heavy misuse of Wikipedia or such twisting of words.

After @ZiaLater’s most recent addition to the page, I cannot, in good conscience, let this go. First, all the information added in the last edit regarding Anzola only cites one source, which happens to be an op-ed, not a fact-based news article. The way this information is laid out insinuates Smartmatic engaged in foul play. In reality, there is no proof Anzola left a meeting “upset,” or that he “became angered when the government demanded higher payments for fingerprint technology.” To portray these claims as fact is both irresponsible and inaccurate.

Moreover, the statement “Smartmatic also received an additional $200,000 loan from the Chávez government” sources an article that has since been removed. Using an archived version of the article does not dismiss the fact the article no longer exists, and to source a deleted article like this simply falsifies the Smartmatic article. I previously brought up this issue, yet nothing has been done about it. While I understand I will be attacked for bringing this up, I feel it is important an administrator, with a neutral perspective on the situation, should take a serious look at what is going on here. Shelbyhoward423 (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Shelbyhoward423 (talk) 13:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The Anzola information was worded to be "allegations", but I have updated the wording some more to establish that these are allegations.ZiaLater ( talk ) 08:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Unusual bias and opinion
The language and tone throughout this entry seem overly pejorative, and, notwithstanding citations of sources expressing opinions not necessarily based on fact, biased. To probe this hypothesis, without wholesale edit, the phrase "Venezuelan-owned" was edited to "privately-owned" yesterday (May 23, 2019). The latter phrase is unarguably true. The former is clearly-misleading, suggesting what would commonly be perceived as Government-owned. As has been proposed on this page previously, in one fashion or another, the language should be amended to reflect fact, not opinion, bias or emotion. "Privately-owned" is fact - which is why the edit was made. The additional fact, with all respect, that yesterday's edit was so quickly reversed suggests an unusually close connection, for whatever reasons, on the part of the author making the quick reversal. Indeed, as stated above, the bias throughout the entry should be wholesale edited to reflect fact without what seems clearly bias/emotion.Wbplummer (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Wbplummer
 * The information is cited. The first sentence in any Wikipedia article on a company denotes its nationality or the nationality of its ownership. Softlavender (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Boeing, for instance, is listed on Wikipedia as an "American company," not an "American-owned" company.  Smartmatic is neither a "Venezuelan-owned" nor "Venezuelan" company.  To be true to your statement, the language should be amended to read a "UK company."  That is a fact.  Clearly your motivation in insisting on maintaining an incorrect entry is suspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbplummer (talk • contribs) 20:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Removal of quotation marks
I've long been troubled by the fact that we use quotation marks for very different purposes. Two of these purposes are, if not exact opposites, close to it.

Obviously, a very common use of quotation marks is to set off a statement made by someone else to emphasize the exact words used by some party. In a Wikipedia article, we might be wishing to make some point that might seem surprising, or interesting or hard to believe, or perhaps simply important, and we might choose to put a passage inside quotation marks to emphasize the exact words used by the subject. Unfortunately, it is also common to use quotes as scare quotes, in which the point is to suggests that this particular term" was literally used but we should not believe it.

Our manual of style discusses this concept: MOS:SCAREQUOTES. The practice isn't prohibited but it is suggested that it should be used with care due to the possibility of it being misinterpreted.

The article contains the sentence:

I don't have access to the underlying reference, but it seems plausible that the reference actually states that the organization receive some funds "from private investors". It might be that the editor who included that statement wanted to use the quotation marks in the literal sense to emphasize that the source document actually uses that term but that's an odd thing to do, editorially. As an alternative interpretation, readers might assume the quotation marks are scare quotes, and the editor is trying to give the impression that sources might say this but they shouldn't be believed. I concur with this concern and see no reason to leave the quotation marks in, so I removed them.

(This edit is motivated by ticket:2019051110000238, but independently assessed by me to be valid.) S Philbrick (Talk)  20:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Bizta 150
The following sentence is problematic:

I'll start by noting the scare quotes around "loan". In contrast to the section above where it seemed plausible that the quotation marks were used in the common, literal sense, it seems more likely the intention was to use them as scare quotes. However, it's not appropriate and not necessary to delve into the motivations of the editor. Given the plausible interpretation that the quotation marks are intended as scare quotes, we ought to be exceedingly careful about such usage. The secondary source states:

It goes on to say:

The source clearly the amount, but is not perfectly clear on whether it was a grant or a loan. I don't think that source remotely justifies using quotation marks around "loan" which might be construed as an inappropriate gift masquerading as a loan. In addition this source clearly refers to a "financing arm of Venezuela's government" which doesn't support the inclusion of the name Marieta Maarroui de Bolívar. While that name does appear in the next reference, that unfortunately is a primary document and not an English and not OCR so not trivial to translate into English to see what it might have to say. Wikipedia greatly prefers secondary references to primary references, so in my opinion if the intention is to tie this transfer of funds to a particular individual, we need far better sourcing.

In addition it is mildly ironic that the Wikipedia article as written seems to be fine ties between the company and the Venezuelan government when the main source has the title "Voting Machine Firm Denies Chavez Ties" That Washington Post article includes allegation of ties which are conveniently referenced and denial of such ties which do not seem to make it to the article.

While researching this I came across this source, which I intend to add as a source.

The source specifically talks about the 150 K:

Note that this uses the term "investment" rather than either "grant" or "loan" and mentions the Venezuelan government but no particular individual.

I think the easiest thing to do is to modify the sentence as follows:


 * It was at this time that Bizta was awarded $150,000 from the Venezuelan government's organization dedicated to industrial funding.[26][30]

I considered adding the allegation that it was repaid, but decided not to.

(This edit is motivated by ticket:2019051110000238, but independently assessed by me to be valid.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs) 15:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * , please note that this article has been routinely under attack from COI editors and SPAs (see the list of some of the CCs in the CC box at the top of the page, most all of whom have been blocked or topic banned from the article). Apparently they are now taking to non-viewable (except to OTRS members) OTRS reports as an end-run to bypass normal editing processes. I think this matter is going to once again have to go to COIN (it has ended up there many times) or eventually to ArbCom if that is the way the COI is operating now. Softlavender (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , While I appreciate the reminder, I was aware that this article has been subject to intense editing by COI's and SPA's. Letting COI editors edit without some sort of oversight by independent editors undermines one of the fundamental pillars of Wikipedia and must not be permitted.
 * That said, we must be careful not to overreact. While one can make a case for reverting the edits of the particular COI editor on sight, if the track record shows they are editing in a biased way, it should be equally obvious that people close to the subject of me have legitimate points to make and we need to find a way to carefully sort out what claims are valid, what claims are invalid and how to provide proper balance in the article.
 * My observation is that many reliable sources have considerable criticism of many aspects of this company, and much of that deserves inclusion in this article. That doesn't mean, of course, that one can cherry pick articles and select out only the critical comments while overlooking assertions that may go in the other direction.
 * The entity writing to Wikimedia via OTRS does have a conflict of interest but they are doing it in the right way. They aren't pretending to be a neutral editor, they are identifying concerns with the article and asking that they be assessed by neutral editor and implemented if appropriate. I'm reviewing their observations, which takes a fair bit of time because it requires some research, and trying to implement those that I think are valid.
 * I will give you a heads up that one of the more contentious issues is the allegation that this company is "Venezuelan-owned". I've raised this issue in other venues (which I'll have to track down if you haven't seen them). I'm not prepared to work on that issue today but I believe you hold a different position so will have to discuss when that time comes. S Philbrick  (Talk)  11:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The entity writing to Wikimedia via OTRS does have a conflict of interest but they are doing it in the right way. They aren't pretending to be a neutral editor, they are identifying concerns with the article and asking that they be assessed by neutral editor and implemented if appropriate. I'm reviewing their observations, which takes a fair bit of time because it requires some research, and trying to implement those that I think are valid.
 * I will give you a heads up that one of the more contentious issues is the allegation that this company is "Venezuelan-owned". I've raised this issue in other venues (which I'll have to track down if you haven't seen them). I'm not prepared to work on that issue today but I believe you hold a different position so will have to discuss when that time comes. S Philbrick  (Talk)  11:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I will give you a heads up that one of the more contentious issues is the allegation that this company is "Venezuelan-owned". I've raised this issue in other venues (which I'll have to track down if you haven't seen them). I'm not prepared to work on that issue today but I believe you hold a different position so will have to discuss when that time comes. S Philbrick  (Talk)  11:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I will give you a heads up that one of the more contentious issues is the allegation that this company is "Venezuelan-owned". I've raised this issue in other venues (which I'll have to track down if you haven't seen them). I'm not prepared to work on that issue today but I believe you hold a different position so will have to discuss when that time comes. S Philbrick  (Talk)  11:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Loan claim
I tried raising an important general issue about Internet archive links at the Village Pump: link. While participants shared some interesting and useful thoughts, the discussion failed to (in my opinion) reach a consensus on what happens when a reliable source disappears, but an Internet archive link exists, and there is some indication that the original link disappeared because it was successfully challenged as not being factual. Can Wikipedia editors simply use the Internet archive link as a reliable source or do they have the responsibility to do more research regarding a potentially contested claim?

While I was interested in the general issue, I opened the discussion because of a specific issue. Namely that this article contained a claim that smart matting received a loan from the Chavez government. At the time I raise the issue, the original published source had been removed at the Internet archive link remained. What to do in that general situation is still an open question in my mind, but I now see that the Internet archive link has been removed so I plan to remove that sentencing question as it is no longer supported by a source. S Philbrick (Talk)  18:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Belgium
In the discussion of Belgium, there's a sentence which originally read:

Following the election, Flanders refused to pay 16.5% of the initial agreed payment due to Smartmatic's failure.

The sentence is rather vague, as "initial agreed payment" isn't precisely defined, and a casual reader might infer that the Flemish government decided to withhold 16 1/2% of the original 40 million euros. However, the actual source (Subject to the challenge that I'm looking at a Google translation of the source) refers to withholding "16.5 PC of the technical support invoice". One potential option is to rewrite the sentence to clarify that the 16 1/2% refers only to the technical support invoice rather than the entire cost. However, given that the source doesn't provide any hint regarding the size of the technical support invoice, this information tells us very little about the financial impact of the decision. While I won't object if someone argues that the information that some portion of the payment was withheld ought to be included in the article somehow, without more information I think this provides very little and arguably less than nothing, meaning that it raises more questions than it answers, so my current view is that the sentence should simply be removed, which I have done. I'm happy to discuss further if anyone thinks another approach would be better.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for more editorial eyes
This article has been subject to some contentious editing over a few years. I've become involved more recently (although I see that I also had some involvement in 2017), so I'm not fully familiar with the full history contemporaneously, but a glance at the edit summaries in the history will give a sense that this article has been subject to contentious editing.

I became involved more recently due to an OTRS referral from our legal department. It is not uncommon that subjects will attempt to obtain help by contacting OTRS and/or our legal department. In most cases, we emphasize the "or". They can pursue legal remedies through our legal department in which case OTRS agents will step back, or they can obtain help from OTRS agents (as well as any other editor who wishes to help) if they are not involved in current legal proceedings. This situation is slightly different, as our legal department has identified some things within their purview, while has identified other issues that can be handled through ordinary editorial decisions. (I am not privy to any issues being handled by the legal department — I am only aware of the requests they passed on to us for editorial considerations.)

Some of these issues are far from trivial, and requires some investigation. I picked off a few of them and addressed them as best I can. While some of my correspondence as is part of the OTRS system and thus confidential, I've attempted to summarize my thought process in posts on this talk page, and I believe anyone could chime in on any issue without needing access to OTRS communications.

Note in particular that one editor, whom I highly respect, (Softlavender) has views that differ from mine on some issues. That's part of the reason I posted the plea to the administrator's noticeboard to make sure that we have input from additional parties.

Not surprisingly, the legal firm identifying what they believe to be shortcomings in the article are going to make their best case for removal or modification, and do not have the responsibility that we have as editors to carefully identify arguments on both sides of the issue. I am attempting not to take their arguments on face value but to consider multiple points of view, but having more eyes on this will help.

There are still some open issues — I try to summarize the issues in a table in the next section and begin working on some of them.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Article revamp
After being notified multiple times and some thinking, I have decided to take a look at this article, make improvements and provide some updates. I will make some changes and provide rationales for major edits below:


 * "Venezuela-owned" removed. Not the best wording and can be confused as being owned by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, which is not the case. It is better to just utilize the "mulitnational company" wording.


 * Slimmed down some of the background that does not necessarily speak directly about Smartmatic. Debating on whether or not to keep the Panagroup Corp. info.


 * Removed much of the info about Bizta. Bizta is not Smartmatic.


 * Corrected CANTV information as it was not state-run in 2004.


 * Moved some info to "Controversy" section and reorganized that section


 * Armenia vote-buying is not related to Smartmatic


 * Removed Belgium. Not too notable and there was no source.


 * Added updates for the Philippines and the United States.


 * Malloch-Brown info was not relevant to Smartmatic as a whole


 * Removed Anzola section as it only has a single source

If you have concerns with these changes, please make a subsection about a particular edit and start a discussion. I hope these explanations help and we can maintain a more improved article.ZiaLater ( talk ) 14:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Diffs are hard to follow for such a comprehensive revamp as this and my attempt to do so was not the most successful, so I'm responding in more of the abstract. Regarding your bullet points, of those areas I know anything about I agree with the edits except around Bizta. Bizta is not Smartmatic, but RS connect the two and I think the previous version was closer to providing appropriate (DUE) coverage. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Issue summary
S Philbrick (Talk)  18:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49's analysis
Alright quite the rabbit hole here. So I skimmed over this table this morning, which I found via the post at AN and thought it would be a good way for me to perform pennance for not being all that active at OTRS. I started by pulling up some reliable sources to see what they said. It suggested to me that the were unflattering claims to be made against this company. However, in actually looking at the complaints I realized there was more basis than I had originally given them credit for. For background while I have read the initial email from WMF to OTRS and some internal OTRS agents notes but I have not read any further correspondence. I am approaching this as a straight content issue and concurrent with this edit am going to make changes I feel appropriate to the article. At that point I will read the full OTRS chain and would be happy to discuss any or all of this with and any other editors.I agree with changes made to items 3, 7, and 14. 4 is a bit more nuanced than I feel it was portrayed in that edit summary. I think there's a chance it's removal will be the correct eventual outcome but I don't think its quite as black and white. A core content dispute here is just how independent Bizta and Smartmatic were from each other. Smartmatic and the Venezuelan government suggested they were independent. At least the US Government was skeptical circa 2006 (e.g New York Times). How real the 200k loan was to Bizta and the exact connection between Smartmatic and Bizta are all matters requiring some weighting of sources. This is obviously important because there is little disagreement that I can find that Bizta had investment by the government and had a relatively high ranking government official on its board. I have done some cleanup about this to try and be more neutral.Claim 17 seems to be a fair claim but the Op-Ed supporting it was a poor source. I replaced with a source in the Atlantic by two International Relations experts. We might still want to adjust this writing as I don't think we want to say in Wikipedia's voice that the company is owned/controlled by the government - especially in light of more recent news which would give some pause to that assertion.I disagree with the sentiment behind claim 5. Good sources all seem in agreement on that fact and there idea that there's an inference to be made there is a bridge too far for me.Claim 9 does seem unsupported by the source. I have adjusted the wording to more accurately paraphrase what the source is saying.I am unable to access the source for claim 10. Normally I would AGF and say we leave it in as relevant context. However given other sourcing issues I've found, unless Philbrick has seen the source and says it's a fair paraphrase, I would be in favor of removing that sentence.Claim 11 can be supported by good sources, though I have slightly reworded.I think the claim in 12 does fairly represent the source.I agree that it's not fair to say Venezuela is the company's native country and have reworded the sentence.I largely agree that source is not reliable and that the claims should be removed.Ok that's all the claims. I look forward to further conversation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thank you for contributing. I welcome any and all input from experienced editors, but as an OTRS agaent, you are able to see the original email. Yes, there is more correspondence but much of that is mostly trying to move things along as opposed to identification of new issues. As an OTRS agent, you are aware that we keep the contents of emails confidential. You might note that I felt it was acceptable to reproduce material when they simply quoted material from the article, but I rewrote their concerns in my own words.
 * I haven't had time to review all of your points but I will add a few selected comments:
 * I agree with your observation that "4 is a bit more nuanced than I feel it was portrayed in that edit summary." the transaction appears to have some importance, and while I felt I could remove it because the claim wasn't adequately supported, it may be better to make reference to the transaction with a better summary. I agree it is not black-and-white.
 * I agree with you regarding claim 5. while I can appreciate the process that led to their concern, I think the swirling in my head was almost identical to yours — the "idea that there is an inference to be made here is a bridge too far".
 * I suspect I will reach the same conclusion regarding claim 12. I read the source, and will reread it but other than possibly some minor wordsmithing, I think the substance is accurate. (Which of course, is not to say that the New York Times has it right but our goal is to accurately report what the sources say.) S Philbrick  (Talk)  12:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * While I read the whole chain of OTRS correspondence last night I had not read the PDF until this morning. I will say that there is one more request I would now make and there are a couple others I would by sympathetic enough to want to do further research about and/or have further discussion about. However, I will not be doing so as those complaints have not been made here by the company truly following our procedures as far as I can tell from a review, albeit not a comprehensive one, of this page and the archive. I don't think companies, which already have many structural advantages when it comes to Wikipedia content, should be able to gain a further advantage by being able to act through OTRS agents who are by their nature skilled Wikipedians. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I thank you for the time you have spent on this issue. I am sympathetic to, although not completely on board, your concern about the way the company is attempting to affect the content. as you are well aware, it is quite common for the subject of an article whether an individual or a company, to take our slogan "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" very literally, and miss that the slogan does have some important unstated caveats. Many of us spend considerable time on doing COI edits, and explaining our preferred procedures. I typically counsel such people that they should post request for changes or improvements to the article talk page. However, I recognize that editing article talk pages, even though it is easier than editing an article, is still not as natural as firing off an email. Hence, a lot of such requests end up at OTRS. If we decided to push them to post their list of concerns on the article talk page, I don't see how it would change the situation in any material way.
 * When such requests come in, editors have to be exceedingly careful of the fact that the requests are being made by someone whose primary goal is likely not to be neutrality. We have to remember that the requests are being couched in terms that are most favorable to the subject. I'm trying to respond to that in three ways:
 * 1. Recognition that the requests comes from someone with conflict of interest is a good start to making sure one wears one's skeptical hat, and doesn't take anything at face value
 * 2. Carefully documenting the rationale for an edit on this talk page establish the thought process so that other independent editors can assess the validity of the edit. a good edit summary is always a good idea, but I'm trying to go beyond that and explain in some depth why I making an edit that I'm making
 * 3. Inviting other independent editors to review as it did with my request at the noticeboard
 * However, it has also been my observation that the reporting in sources is not always first-rate, and there seem to be editors interested in painting this company in a negative way. I am interested in being as neutral as possible, but that's a challenge. S Philbrick  (Talk)  17:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I will own that my actions have likely lead you to think I'm more critical of your actions than I really am. I had sent the email with a version of my concern expecting that to be the end of it. I felt comfortable coming in and making the changes I made because I essentially took your comments as representing the company. I could then decide, based on my own research and policy knowledge, what to accept and what not to just as I could with any other COI requested edit. While I had basically no special knowledge in making these edits, I then read the privileged material and frankly I have issues with some of what they wrote. At the same time I also became more sympathetic to some other pieces of their request but given that you had already acted as their agent I didn't feel comfortable then doing my own summary of the issues. So I wrote that response with the company/their lawyers in mind. If they see my writing they can see that there's other chances to get changes made but also, in honesty, since they're making the request publicly I can then respond publicly to what they say. The neutrality of this article remains an issue and I think it remains an issue in a way that is negative towards the company. So at this point I'm going to replace the close contributor template with neutrality - the worry with close contributor is puffery not criticism. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 3. Inviting other independent editors to review as it did with my request at the noticeboard
 * However, it has also been my observation that the reporting in sources is not always first-rate, and there seem to be editors interested in painting this company in a negative way. I am interested in being as neutral as possible, but that's a challenge. S Philbrick  (Talk)  17:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I will own that my actions have likely lead you to think I'm more critical of your actions than I really am. I had sent the email with a version of my concern expecting that to be the end of it. I felt comfortable coming in and making the changes I made because I essentially took your comments as representing the company. I could then decide, based on my own research and policy knowledge, what to accept and what not to just as I could with any other COI requested edit. While I had basically no special knowledge in making these edits, I then read the privileged material and frankly I have issues with some of what they wrote. At the same time I also became more sympathetic to some other pieces of their request but given that you had already acted as their agent I didn't feel comfortable then doing my own summary of the issues. So I wrote that response with the company/their lawyers in mind. If they see my writing they can see that there's other chances to get changes made but also, in honesty, since they're making the request publicly I can then respond publicly to what they say. The neutrality of this article remains an issue and I think it remains an issue in a way that is negative towards the company. So at this point I'm going to replace the close contributor template with neutrality - the worry with close contributor is puffery not criticism. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I will own that my actions have likely lead you to think I'm more critical of your actions than I really am. I had sent the email with a version of my concern expecting that to be the end of it. I felt comfortable coming in and making the changes I made because I essentially took your comments as representing the company. I could then decide, based on my own research and policy knowledge, what to accept and what not to just as I could with any other COI requested edit. While I had basically no special knowledge in making these edits, I then read the privileged material and frankly I have issues with some of what they wrote. At the same time I also became more sympathetic to some other pieces of their request but given that you had already acted as their agent I didn't feel comfortable then doing my own summary of the issues. So I wrote that response with the company/their lawyers in mind. If they see my writing they can see that there's other chances to get changes made but also, in honesty, since they're making the request publicly I can then respond publicly to what they say. The neutrality of this article remains an issue and I think it remains an issue in a way that is negative towards the company. So at this point I'm going to replace the close contributor template with neutrality - the worry with close contributor is puffery not criticism. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Item 19
, Item 19 should be taken care of. Could not find any other additional sources, so it was deleted.ZiaLater ( talk ) 14:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I updated the table. S Philbrick (Talk)  19:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Chairman Lord Malloch Brown is on Soros "Open Societies" board
As per Smartmatic website, the chairman of SGO is also currently on the board of George Soros' Open Society Foundation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Society_Foundations

https://www.smartmatic.com/us/smartmatic-fact-checked/

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's already mentioned at Mark Malloch Brown, Baron Malloch-Brown. I don't see how it's relevant for this article, aside from perhaps titillating the conspiracy theorists. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The fact that the company shares board members with Open Society Foundation should probably be somewhere in the extensive controversy section. Maybe not. TuffStuffMcG (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not without reliable sources describing it as an actual controversy, which I haven't seen. The only mention of it I've seen in RS has been to remark on how it's another one of Giuliani et al's attempts to delegitimize the results of the election. The RS don't give it any actual coverage because it isn't any actual basis for the concern, besides among some on the right, who have a penchant for antisemitic conspiracy theories about George Soros. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Smartmatic thought it was notable enough to add a comment on their own website.


 * If anything, Smartmatic seems to have replaced Lord Malloch Brown with Neffenger as Chairman as per their own website. I'm not sure how to note that changeTuffStuffMcG (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not accurate. Malloch Brown is the chairman of the board of SGO Corporation, the parent company of Smartmatic: . Neffenger is the chairman of the board of Smartmatic:.
 * Lots of companies find all sorts of things noteworthy to say about themselves. We go by reliable, independent sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * ok, thanks. The "Key People" section suggests otherwise. Can you make a note there? It looks like Mallock is listed as Chairman of SmartmaticTuffStuffMcG (talk) 00:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh good call, hadn't noticed that. I'll fix it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * He seems to still be a "Key Person" though...
 * I didn't mean to imply he should be purged from the info box. SGO seems to be a direct spin-off parent company without a wiki article. Clarifying his key role is probably better than obfuscating it.
 * TuffStuffMcG (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's mentioned in Smartmatic. I removed it because I don't think there's any way to convey "Lord Mark Malloch-Brown, Chairman of SGO Corporation, which is the parent company of Smartmatic" in the infobox without it becoming extremely difficult to read, and leaving out that context leads to confusion like you just experienced. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I guess that makes sense. I came here to dispell the conspiracy theories coming out of wikileaks and TGP, and have left deeply disturbed and confused.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Neffenger is on the Biden transition team. It gets deeper and deeper.  Interestinger and interestinger. -Topcat777 (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you say so. This is not the place to muse on conspiracy theories. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * this is not the place to muse about conspiracy theories, true. This is the place to come to dispel them through fact checking sources. Neffenger is listed as a "self employed" transition team volunteer on the Biden/Harris website.
 * https://buildbackbetter.com/the-transition/agency-review-teams/
 * TuffStuffMcG (talk) 10:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that be added to this article? I'm not sure I see why it ought to go here rather than at his bio. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Links to the Bolivarian Government of Venezuela
I removed two sentences because they were not supported by sources and rather than reword them, I note that the sources themselves do not meet our standards for sources so I simply removed the sentences. I explained my rationale more completely in the table above — see item 17.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Smartmatic origins and role in the recall election in Venezuela. Pages 58-59: https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Threat_Closer_to_Home/ndgoy_h3taIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22venezuelan+government+to+found+a+company+named+smartmatic%22&pg=PT75&printsec=frontcover Topcat777 (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like there were similar rumors floating around in 2006 about Smartmatic and Venezuela, so I think we need to be extremely careful in validating our sourcing. Another potentially relevant source: NY Times article from 2006 GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

United States: 2020 Elections
the following was found in a previous, reverted, edit: ==== 2020 Elections ====

Alleged to be part of election fraud during USA 2020 elections - via Smartmatic / Sctyl / Dominion Voting Systems.

here's a source: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-attorney-sidney-powell-says-they-are-fixing-to-overturn-the-results-of-the-election-in-several-states

Can we get this thing back in the article, ASAP? 173.14.238.113 (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not without an actual reliable source. See WP:RSP: there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims. Furthermore, the source is just repeating what a Trump attorney has alleged, not making the statement themselves. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Have another: http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/check-the-code-dominion-voting-system-tied-to-hugo-chavez-voter-fraud-used-in-2020-swing-states/ 173.14.238.113 (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to start a discussion at WP:RSN to determine that the Cape Charles Mirror is a reliable source, be my guest, but from what I can tell that is a small newspaper whose reliability hasn't ever been discussed among Wikipedia editors. I would recommend finding a source from the list of green publications at WP:RSP. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

And finally we have one from a "green" source, the New York Intelligencer: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/11/trumps-dominion-vote-fraud-election-conspiracy-theory-crazy.html 173.14.238.113 (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This has been added by another editor: Smartmatic GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

This entire section is misleading. It has not been confirmed to be a hoax. Investigations are pending and court trials have yet to rule on these matters. The media being cited is not reliable as a source. The contents of this section are not trustworthy and appear to be malicious. Make appropriate edits to it to accurately reflect truth rather than sentiment. Any future donation contributions of mine are contingent on Wikipedia maintaining an unbiased credibility. This section is quite obviously biased as it now stands. 11/20/2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.93.177.132 (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you would like to challenge the general reliability of sources like The Associated Press and The New York Times, that's a topic for the reliable sources noticeboard, because there is longstanding consensus among Wikipedia editors that those sources are generally reliable: WP:RSP. As for the donation comment, editors maintain Wikipedia articles according to Wikipedia policy, not the promise of (or threat to withhold) donation money to the Wikimedia Foundation. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)