. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . till we *) . . .

Hi Andre,

thanks for pointing that out. If this is really the case, I also propose a recount (how should one now that ~~~~ between == don't work?!). (IIRC, I came back from holiday just before the voting period ended and didn't check if my vote was counted)

Regards,

Till

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Till Westermayer wrote:

...

interesting -- but are you sure you get all the votes? AFAIK, I did vote (till we *) or Tillwe), but Inpage-Search didn't find me in your data sheet.

You signed with ==~~~~==. Within =='s, the ~~~~ are not shown as your user name, so you were judged to have "no username". I have put forward that I was in favor of counting your vote, but no action was taken.

P.S.: I hereby refuse to consider the vote tallying of the last round of the logo vote valid, the reason being that kpjas's votes have not been counted, nor has there been discussion about several other people's votes (including tillwe's).

Andre Engels

---

Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

__ . / / / / ... Till Westermayer - till we *) . . . mailto:till@tillwe.de . www.westermayer.de/till/ . icq 320393072 . Habsburgerstr. 82 . 79104 Freiburg . 0761 55697152 . 0160 96619179 . . . . .

Richard-

On 30 Sep 2003 21:23:00 +0200, Till Westermayer till@tillwe.de gave utterance to the following:

...

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . till we *) . . .

Hi Andre,

thanks for pointing that out. If this is really the case, I also propose a recount (how should one now that ~~~~ between == don't work?!). (IIRC, I came back from holiday just before the voting period ended and didn't check if my vote was counted)

Well that's three users who were qualified to vote who missed out for technical reasons. I signed the same way, but the page never reloaded full (the server was down for the next hour or two, and by the time I managed to get back to W the next day, voting was done and dusted.

==~~~~== does work, but there are apparently certain browser/OS combinations which had problems with the Unicode representation on Meta and copy and pasted it in a way that doesn't work. To avoid this from occurring repeatedly I changed the template at some point to just say ==[[User:Foo]]==. In any case, most invalid ballots have been marked as invalid long before the vote ended, and all invalid ones are listed on [[International logo vote/Invalid ballots]]. The rules for what type of ballot is acceptable and what type is not have been made very clear repeatedly, and, to my knowledge, nobody has voted for Pat Buchanan.

Note that some people refused to accept the first round of voting because the rules were too lax and cheating was too easy. If some people refuse to accept the second round of voting because the rules are too strict and cheating is too difficult, then I think these complaints can be fairly considered to negate each other.

Regards,

Erik

On 30 Sep 2003, Erik Moeller wrote:

==~~~~== does work, but there are apparently certain browser/OS combinations which had problems with the Unicode representation on Meta and copy and pasted it in a way that doesn't work. To avoid this from occurring repeatedly I changed the template at some point to just say ==[[User:Foo]]==. In any case, most invalid ballots have been marked as invalid long before the vote ended, and all invalid ones are listed on [[International logo vote/Invalid ballots]]. The rules for what type of ballot is acceptable and what type is not have been made very clear repeatedly, and, to my knowledge, nobody has voted for Pat Buchanan.

No, but some have voted in the reasonable expectation that their vote was valid, whereas it was not. The rules were laid out to ensure that people were a valid user (i.e. with at least 10 contributions) on some Wikipedia. They were not laid out to make voting more difficult by creating technicalities.

People have linked directly to their elsewhere user page rather than through their meta page, people have had links on their meta page to Wikipedia pages on www.wikipedia.com because they were so long users, people have given their nick and said "I am from the English Wikipedia". Those have all not been counted. Why? Because there is the possibility they cheated? No. Because they did not go with some random rule. Or in some cases, like the one we are describing now, because they simply had technical problems.

Note that some people refused to accept the first round of voting because the rules were too lax and cheating was too easy. If some people refuse to accept the second round of voting because the rules are too strict and cheating is too difficult, then I think these complaints can be fairly considered to negate each other.

In other words, that people may have cheated on the first round does not matter, because on the second round there were people who did not cheat who were counted as cheaters? And that in the second round there are people whose vote did not count whereas some (many?) think it should does not matter because in the first round there are people whose vote did count whereas some (many?) think it should not?

That's a strange definition of complaints negating, in my opinion. If you had said, there are people who think the _second round_ rules were not strict enough as well as people who said they were too strict, then you would have had a point. But not this way. It's like saying, "Wikipedia has too much on A and too little on B. But that cancels out, so we're not going to change either article."

Andre Engels

On 1 Oct 2003, Erik Moeller wrote:

Andre-

...

No, but some have voted in the reasonable expectation that their vote was valid, whereas it was not.

I don't have time to validate votes beyond the rules as they were clearly laid out on the voting page. If you wish to post-vote validate some ballots, go ahead and do it. In the case of the ~~~~ votes, this includes checking the history and locating the exact revision where this text was added, then checking which username made the addition (and only counting it if it was in fact a username, and not an anonymous IP). Have fun.

I already did, see http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/intlwiki-l/2003-September/002338.html where I have checked the various removed votes, and given my opinion about them.

I did not check the votes on other languages there, so I will have to check a bit more.

------------------- I'm not accepting the results if not included: * Kpjas Links to his en: page, just uses a link that worked when he created it 2 years ago, but does not any more. Apart from that an ancient and well-known wikipedian.

------------------- Certainly in favor of inclusion: * JDG Clearly identifies himself on his meta: user page as the en: user of the same nick.

* first anonymous user (=en:Dramatic) * second anonmyous user (=en:Tillwe) Signing with ~~~~ between =='s

* de:Benutzer:korny78 * de:Benutzer:Hafenbar * de:Benutzer:wst Link directly to their page on de: and that was the purpose, wasn't it, to be sure they were a user with some contributions on some wikipedia?

* Gaucho Typo in his link to his de: userpage

------------------- Probably want to include:

* Pacific1982 * F. P. Laussy (Laussy) Clearly the same person as the en: user with the same username. No identification on their meta: user page as to which Wikipedia they are coming from though.

* RodrigoB Believably identifies himself as an anonymous contributor on en:

------------------- Agree with removal:

* Mjanich * Juky * Elliott * Heymarcel * Skrrytch * Dishayloo * bzwische * Ralph

Have no meta page

* bluenote * PierreC * Tempshill * Richa B

Meta page does not inform from which Wikipedia they are

* GillianAnderson First edit (at least under this name) on de: was several days after the closing of the voting period)

======================================================================

For the count: Here is the extra points the various proposals get with those I certainly want to include. All have 7 votes, unless otherwise specified.

* 1a: 24 * 1b: 17 * 2a: 15 * 2b: 20 * 2c: 17 * 2d: 16 * 2e: 17 * 3a: 20 * 3b: 19 * 4a: 14 * 4b: 17 * 4c: 17 * 4d: 18 * 5a: 14 * 5b: 11 * 5c: 14 * 5d: 13 * 5e: 11 * 6a: 25 (from 8 votes) * 6b: 21 (from 8 votes) * 6c: 15 * 7a: 12 * 7b: 9 * 7c: 9 * 7d: 11 * 7e: 11 * 8: 21 * 9a: 11 * 9b: 10 * 9c: 10 * 9d: 10 * 9e: 10 * 10: 21 * 11: 14 (from 6 votes) * 0: 17

And here with also those I probably want to include. All have 10 votes unless otherwise specified.

* 1a: 34 * 1b: 25 * 2a: 20 * 2b: 24 * 2c: 21 * 2d: 20 * 2e: 21 * 3a: 25 * 3b: 24 * 4a: 22 * 4b: 22 * 4c: 22 * 4d: 25 * 5a: 22 * 5b: 18 * 5c: 25 * 5d: 21 * 5e: 22 * 6a: 32 (from 11 votes) * 6b: 28 (from 11 votes) * 6c: 23 * 7a: 17 * 7b: 14 * 7c: 14 * 7d: 16 * 7e: 16 * 8: 32 * 9a: 19 * 9b: 18 * 9c: 18 * 9d: 18 * 9e: 18 * 10: 25 * 11: 17 (from 9 votes) * 0: 23

Andre Engels

On 1 Oct 2003, Erik Moeller wrote:

Andre-

...

I already did

Great. So everything's peachy, no?

Well, not really, since there is still no agreement on which votes should count. Then again, wherever we draw the line, the winner does seem to be the same, so I will rest my case. There's more important things to do.

Andre Engels

Ray-

IOW, the complicated restrictions made no difference to the final result. :-)

Maybe so -- I was no big fan of the idea to crack down on cheating, but Mav and others threatened to refuse to accept the vote if anti-cheating measures were not implemented. Consider, however, that the next time we do something like this, the large majority of users will already have their Meta accounts set up.

Regards,

Erik

Andre Engels wrote:

On 30 Sep 2003, Erik Moeller wrote:

...

In any case, most invalid ballots have been marked as invalid long before the vote ended, and all invalid ones are listed on [[International logo vote/Invalid ballots]]. The rules for what type of ballot is acceptable and what type is not have been made very clear repeatedly, and, to my knowledge, nobody has voted for Pat Buchanan.

No, but some have voted in the reasonable expectation that their vote was valid, whereas it was not. The rules were laid out to ensure that people were a valid user (i.e. with at least 10 contributions) on some Wikipedia. They were not laid out to make voting more difficult by creating technicalities.

I think most people opted out of the voting method discussion because it became far too arcane. When the time came for the 2nd round vote on the logo they just gave it their best shot, trusting that it would be dealt with fairly. As a system becomes more complicated there are more things that can go wrong. I suspect (but can't be sure of) where my vote went wrong. Somehow, my Meta user page did not link to another project, but I do have at least 10 edits in Meta alone so it was not needed, and nobody ever said that Meta was an excluded project.

People have linked directly to their elsewhere user page rather than through their meta page, people have had links on their meta page to Wikipedia pages on www.wikipedia.com because they were so long users, people have given their nick and said "I am from the English Wikipedia". Those have all not been counted. Why? Because there is the possibility they cheated? No. Because they did not go with some random rule. Or in some cases, like the one we are describing now, because they simply had technical problems.

This was bound to have problems, and was compounded by the slow server. When I was voting I twice received an edit conflict message. A vote with such a wide range of options where all the votes are put into the same "article" is bound to have slow loading problems.

...

Note that some people refused to accept the first round of voting because the rules were too lax and cheating was too easy. If some people refuse to accept the second round of voting because the rules are too strict and cheating is too difficult, then I think these complaints can be fairly considered to negate each other.

In other words, that people may have cheated on the first round does not matter, because on the second round there were people who did not cheat who were counted as cheaters? And that in the second round there are people whose vote did not count whereas some (many?) think it should does not matter because in the first round there are people whose vote did count whereas some (many?) think it should not?

That's a strange definition of complaints negating, in my opinion. If you had said, there are people who think the _second round_ rules were not strict enough as well as people who said they were too strict, then you would have had a point. But not this way. It's like saying, "Wikipedia has too much on A and too little on B. But that cancels out, so we're not going to change either article."

I never considered cheating to be a major issue. The purpose of the first round was to reduce the number of candidates to a reasonable size by eliminating those that didn't have a chance of winning. Ten winners in that round was an arbitrary number, and adding the eleventh was a perfectly sensible act. The most that a cheater could have accomplished in that round is have his pet design added to the top ten to the exclusion of another design, but if this ten is taken as an arbitrary and flexible amount, and the voting director has the right to include borderline losers on the list there would be no problem.

One very good way to create confusion in a voting system is to develop rules for problems that aren't there. Confusion has been a far bigger problem than cheating. The number of people who would cheat in this kind of situation is small, and the number whose cheating would be on a large scale is a small proportion of all the cheaters. Catching and invalidating the efforts of the large scale cheaters makes sense, but when it comes to the small scale cheating that might only affect one ballot we would do better to develop situations where that cheating doesn't matter.

Ec

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Ray Saintonge wrote:

In all fairness I did complain when I saw that my vote had been disallowed. Andre reviewed the issue.

I've since looked at the situation and my vote was reinstated (though none of the others. Thanks Erik.

Actually, Jeroenvrp's was reinstated as well.

Andre Engels