Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy

''This article was split off from a section in U.S. presidential election, 2004 into it's own page. Unfortunately, that move has opened it up to massive expansion - overshadowing the real impact of this issue as reported in external sources. ''


 * (correction-this article was at no time a split off - FT2)'
 * (also note: Netoholic modified significantly a whole section from the U.S. presidential election, 2004 article ) - Ta bu shi da yu 02:55, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments section from main page
All shifted back to the main page, as the talk page doesn't show on VfD!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:55, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

how many edits before voting
''Note: This was moved from Village pump (assistance). Neutralitytalk 22:42, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)''

Context: the following relates to the various 2004 U.S. election voting controversies articles now on VfD. -- Jmabel  |  Talk  09:32, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

User Reene sent me a message that I could not vote on keeping a particular page because I had not done enough edits.

I had already done a number of edits a few days ago on one of the pages in question which was slated for deletion.

I think that my edits were responsible and factual, and they in fact, were not reverted. (I did the edits without an account, but an IP check will show that they came from my machine)

Is his/her comment correct? How many edits are "necessary" before one is "allowed" to vote on keeping or deleting a page? --Boscobiscotti 03:43, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

this is what was posted to my talk page:

Please take note of the fact that you are ineligable for voting on VfD issues until you have a reasonable number of edits to articles on your contributions list. Joining just to vote on VfD is not allowed. Your votes are therefore invalid. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 03:07, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * This user's contributions list show no such edits as I just explained to them on their talk page. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 03:48, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed my contributions list does not show the edits. in fact, as I mention above, the edits to were done a few days before I registered as a user. If someone wants to examine my edits to verify that they were legitimate enhancements to the page in question, take a look at  My interest in being involved in this wiki page is in helping to make the page more factual and to add references. --Boscobiscotti 07:30, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In looking at the discussion, I now see that this user has removed my vote on this page, and presumably other pages. --Boscobiscotti 07:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I have done no such thing. I made a footnote beneath each vote stating they were invalid with a link to your contributions page. False accusations are NOT a good way to start your career as a good contributor to Wikipedia. Also, as I said, it matters not that you made the edits anonymously before. Even if you'd made edits to that page with that account your vote still wouldn't count. Read the policy on such matters. Reene&#9998; 08:07, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I read the page you mention. I presumed you removed my vote, because I looked at the discussion page after your edit and my vote was no longer showing. So it was an administrator that made that change to my vote? Did you read the page you mentioned? It mentions that an administrator "may" disregard a vote if it was made "in bad faith" and then gives examples of situations including "only edits are to page in question" however, it does not stipulate "must" it leaves the matter open to interpretation.--Boscobiscotti 08:47, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It doesn't have to have been an admin, it could be any editor, check the history, do some diffs from that (you should be able to work this out; you should also be able pretty easily to work out how to restore your edited-out remarks, if only by cut and paste); also, I believe there is a way to arrange to get "credit" for your pre-registration edits: can someone explain how to do this? -- Jmabel | Talk 09:28, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * Changing attribution for an edit? Johnleemk | Talk 15:31, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * IMO, Reene shouldn't have outright stated that the vote was to be disregarded; IMO, that's for the admin/editor handling the particular VfD when voting is over to decide. However, there is nothing wrong with noting a user's edits to assist the admin's final decision. It's a sad fact of life that your vote can and will be disputed if you don't have a substantial amount of edits. Johnleemk | Talk 15:31, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * We should assume good faith. Always. You do not "earn the right to vote" with edits; everyone is a priori entitled to vote, just as everyone is a priori entitled to contribute. If you can make plausible that a vote isn't valid (sockpuppet or co-conspirator), do so, but don't just kick it out; not even admins should do this. All votes should be kept until the time comes for tallying; evaluating whether a vote is valid based on the annotations is not typically a difficult process. Someone falsely accused of casting an invalid vote should be able to convince the accusors to withdraw the claim well before the actual tallying takes place, without the need for "exterminate on sight" policies. So basically, what Johnleemk said. :-~
 * I've got less than a thousand edits, so I hope I can make these sorts of bold statements. :-D WikiLove to all. JRM 15:57, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)


 * 1) I would like to apologize to Renee for assuming she(he) had removed my vote. In retrospect, I believe I misread, and assumed my vote was removed. 2) What contributed to my misreading the page, were Reene's statements on my talk page, and on the page

Which stated flatly "Your vote is invalid." Read my comments there for more discussion. Boy am I getting an education in Wikipedia! If anyone wants to contact me offline, I will send them a note by email which details my experience with Computer Security issues! I came to this wiki wanting to make a contribution to the issue of e-voting - and to make the  information more readable and factual, and have spent most of my time since then justifying myself! --Boscobiscotti 19:26, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Kindly refrain from saying that people can't vote. Absent evidence of bad faith (and as a developer I'm more than happy to check on request), a vote should be a vote. Jamesday 00:21, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So what exactly is our policy on who can vote? There seems to be a disagreement here. That implies to me that our policy needs to be made more clear. While there will often be disagreements about what our policy should be, there shouldn't be any disagreements about what our policy is. Paul August &#9742; 21:34, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * Good grief. It's up to the admin to determine whether votes should be counted. Reene is not an admin. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:01, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)