Commons:Deletion requests/All files at Category:Minutes of the Vote Count for the 2024 Presidential Elections in Venezuela

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

All files at Category:Minutes of the Vote Count for the 2024 Presidential Elections in Venezuela

[edit]

Recently, User:Wilfredor has uploaded the minutes of the recent Elections for the Presidency of Venezuela. I think that the minutes are in the public domain, as those are legal documents. However, the uploader is tagging the page https://resultadosconvzla.com/ as the source of this minutes, and adding the official body Consejo Nacional Electoral de Venezuela as the author of the files. This is incorrect tagging, as the web https://resultadosconvzla.com/ is not the Consejo Nacional Electoral de Venezuela, but an ad-hoc website created by the Venezuelan opposition to show what they say that are the official minutes. I don't have any proof to say that those minutes are real or counterfeited, but the website https://resultadosconvzla.com/ has a copyright tag, and it's not the Consejo Nacional Electoral de Venezuela. - Theklan (talk) 09:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep 1) The minutes are just data, therefore no copyright applies.
2) The "ad-hoc website created by the Venezuelan opposition" is pretty much legitimate, since delegates from the opposition are one of the parties which receive the minutes printed by the machine, along with the CNE. You are attributing an authority to the CNE which it doesn't have in the least - that's the very reason these minutes are impressed and distributed to a number of delegates from the various parties in the first place.
It's irrelevant if you believe or not in these delegates, since it's not up to you to decide or audit that - and in all circumstances they would be in the Public Domain for being nothing but non copyrightable data. Darwin Ahoy! 09:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are different arguments here:
  1. This minutes are not just data. Raw data is general in the public domain, but collections of data can be copyrighted, as databases can be copyrighted. Anyway, this is not the case here, as the uploader didn't upload raw data, but JPGs, which have a layout, signatures and other items.
  2. I don't know if the ad-hoc website is legitimate or not, the minutes are real or not, but anyway those are not the minutes from the CNE, because the data presented is different. That's why this minutes can't be attributed to the CNE, but to whoever has created the ad-hoc website, which is under copyright.
  3. If there's this mismatch, we can't claim that this are the actual minutes having the authorship of the CNE, because that's not true. I'm not the one attributing an authority to the CNE, is the uploader who claims that this documents come from the CNE, which the [Government of Venezuela claims is not true. We should refrain from claiming that this are official documents, and attribute it to the source, which is this copyrighted website.
  4. If the copyright applies here or not is another discussion. If this was raw data, I wouldn't argue about the copyright (the discussion would be about the factuality), but it's not raw data, but JPG files with other elements inside.
Theklan (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theklan According to the source, those are the minutes automatically emitted by the machines. They certainly do not come from the CNE, they come from the voting machines. They were signed and delivered to the delegates and the CNE, those being the ones from the ConVzla delegates. I'm puzzled why you say that the data presented "is different" from the CNE minutes, since AFAIK those were never made public. So unless you have some inside source at the Miraflores Palace, I don't think your claim can hold any water there. Anyway, it seems you are not even arguing about copyright, so I'm also puzzled what this DR is about. Darwin Ahoy! 10:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they don't come from the CNE, then the source is not the CNE, as stated by the uploader. The source should be changed to state that this images don't come from the CNE (which is one of the claims here).
The data is obviously different from the the CNE, because the sum is not matching. If the data would be the same, the result should be the same, which is not. There's even an official video claiming that these are counterfeited, which I can't post because of spam blocking of youtube: youtu.be/wspxQWlkM8o. Theklan (talk) 10:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theklan These minutes are very much legitimate, as they come from ConVzla delegates, which are one of the legitimate sources according to Venezuelan law. It's absolutely irrelevant if they are equal or not to the CNE ones, since the probability of fakery is the same for both sides, and as I said, that's the very reason why these paper minutes are emitted and kept in first place. You seem to be jumping to extraordinary conclusions by blindly believing CNE claims without even seeing any minutes from their part. Anyway, that would not be up to you to decide, in any case.
As for the files, if your problem is with the author being CNE instead of the CNE voting machines, that can be quickly fixed using VFC, AWB or a bot. And it still is not a copyright issue. Darwin Ahoy! 10:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the source is not the CNE voting machines. The source is a copyrighted website claiming these are legitimate documents, which is, at least, contentious. Theklan (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theklan The source is an official ConVzla website presenting the minutes of their delegates as (according to them) received from the voting machine operators. As already stated, your claim that they are not legitimate has no basis at all, as well as the references to a copyright mark on the website which obviously do not apply to materials which are themselves in the public domain. Please refrain from repeating the same thing over and over, that doesn't add anything to the debate. Darwin Ahoy! 11:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then the author should be "ConVzla". Theklan (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theklan No, that would mean they completely fabricated the minutes, which is a rather extraordinary claim without any base. The source information we present should be factual, not arbitrary Wikimedist opinions and baseless claims. It has already been fixed, BTW. Darwin Ahoy! 13:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The new authorship seems better. Theklan (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding The data is obviously different from the the CNE, because the sum is not matching: the CNE has not released any tally sheets at all. It has only twice stated vote counts: on the 29 July it gave vote counts that correspond to the percentages 51.20000%, 44.20000%, and 4.60000%, to that level of precision, and on 2 August it published some vote vounts that give the invalid/null count as 0.41000%. These are for counts supposedly accurate to the level of several million voters. These are only barely more credible than 60.00000%, 35.00000%, and 5.00000%. So based on the w:WP:RS, there is no reason to expect there to be any match between the CNE values and the actas; the CNE vote counts so far published (just a tiny handful of numbers) are not credible.
If the CNE ever publishes tally sheets, then we can publish them under PD with names like File:11 DE JULIO CNE.jpg instead of File:11 DE JULIO.jpg. Boud (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep The CNE logo is not copyrighted, and the rest is just data printed from a machine. Even a copyrighted website can host files that are public domain, even if they do not declare it as such. I am also wondering how this deletion request is not motivated by the nominator's position on the disputed election results, similar to Darwin's concerns. --Minoa (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please, refrain from canvasing me. I'm not from Venezuela, not even from South America. Theklan (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Each vote tally has a QR code to confirm its authenticity. The copyright law in Venezuela is clear in saying that documents authored by the government are in the public domain ({{PD-VenezuelaGov}}). Even if the actas were supposedly counterfeited, I doubt that they reach the threshold of originality, since they mostly consist in text and signatures. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. The QR encodes the number of the machine and the number of votes. You can check it yourself. The authenticity is checked with the hash number in the top and the digital signature in the bottom, and this can only be checked with the database from the CNE. So you and me can't know if the uploaded minutes are real or counterfeited... we can only know if the QR code and the number of votes displayed in the top are the same, which is something quite easy to do.
Anyway, I'm not asking anyone to judge if the documents are real. And even if they were conterfeited they still have a place in Commons, as those are historical documents to prove the dicussion itself. What I'm claiming is that we can't say that this are a work from the VenezuelaGov, because the Government of Venezuela claims that this minutes are false. We should attribute those to the opposition party which created the website, so we don't create more confusion. Theklan (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep According to the Venezuelan Copyright Law, documents issued by the government, such as voting records, are in the public domain and are not subject to copyright (Art. 4). These records, printed by voting machines and distributed to delegates from different parties, including the opposition, meet this definition. Additionally, the presentation format, such as JPG files with signatures and other elements, does not affect their public domain status as they do not reach the originality threshold required for copyright protection (Art. 3). Even though the records were uploaded from an opposition website, this does not change their public nature or legitimize a copyright claim by the website. It is not up to us to determine the veracity of the documents, but to ensure that copyright rights are respected. --Wilfredor (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It is not up to us to determine the veracity of the documents, but to ensure that copyright rights are respected". Exactly that. The only way this are PD is if the documents were printed by voting machines, which is under dispute. Theklan (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theklan No, it's not. The source is authoritative and claims the documents were obtained from the voting machines. That you apparently don't believe it is really immaterial to the case, as there is no copyright claim to start with: The source claims the documents were issued by the CNE voting machines, therefore PD-Gov (and even without that they would be in the PD, anyway). Darwin Ahoy! 14:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not what? Are you claiming that this is not under dispute? Because I have read some news talking about the issue with these documents, and the Government is claiming that those are counterfeit (I provide the video above). Theklan (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theklan What is not in dispute is that:
  • The minutes came from the ConVzla website;
  • ConVzla claims these are the minutes issued by the CNE voting machines;
  • ConVzla is an authoritative source for minutes obtained from the CNE voting machines, under the Venezuelan law.
That Maduro or the CNE is in dispute with ConVzla about the nature of these minutes is absolutely irrelevant to Commons. That was very much expected, that's why they were printed, signed and collected by CNE and the party delegates present at the voting stations in first place. Darwin Ahoy! 15:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, but they were also signed by the CNE personnel in the polling centers. --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Venezuelako Hauteskunde Kontseilu Nazionalak (CNE) boto-akten faltsuak direla dioen arren, horrek ez die eragiten hauteskunde-prozesuan zehar jaulkitako dokumentu ofizialen izaerari. Dokumentu horien izaera ofizialak dirau, prozesu gobernamental formal baten barruan sortu eta banatu baitziren, eta Venezuelako egile-eskubideen legearen arabera, domeinu publikoan daude. Beste dokumentu gobernamental batzuekin antzekoa da, behin jaulkitakoan, haien egiazkotasuna zalantzan jartzen bada ere, dokumentu ofizialak izaten jarraitzen dute. Boto-aktek ez dute izaera ofiziala galtzen haien edukia dela eta egon daitezkeen eztabaiden ondorioz. Adibidez, Ameriketako Estatu Batuetako Erregistro Presidentzialen Legearen kasuan, administrazioak sortutako dokumentuak gobernuaren erregistro ofizialak izaten jarraitzen dute, zalantzan jartzen edo aldi baterako kentzen badira ere Wilfredor (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep peer discussion (En el articulo 325 de la Ley organica del Trabajo,los trabajadores y trabajadoras LOTTT,es totalmente clara.)
AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Under Venezuelan electoral law, the observers at a polling station have the right to take away copies of the actas. There's no sign of the actas being faked, except for w:WP:FRINGE claims by government authorities. There seems to be no doubt about the PD copyright status. Boud (talk) 01:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Kept, per DarwIn, the files are ineligible for copyright as work of Venezuelan government. Taivo (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/All_files_at_Category:Minutes_of_the_Vote_Count_for_the_2024_Presidential_Elections_in_Venezuela&oldid=926369920"