From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States / Ohio (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio (marked as Low-importance).
WikiProject Companies  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Diebold Loses Key Copyright Case[edit]

What about this information???... who eliminated it???... why is it not included in here as it is quite fundamental regarding this company??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

NH Primary[edit]

Don't think that there's any basis for stating there's a discrepancy to be honest. Someone would have to do some serious investigation work to prove it anyway. Ironically, this part of the article was actually removed before I could remove it. -- (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Old messages[edit]

How 'bout this latest news: Diebold has a single key design that opens every voting machine, and they posted a picture of the key on their own site. The key can be, and was, duplicated from that photo, and as has been proven by Princeton, all a hacker needs is 60 seconds with an open machine to infect it, and all connected machines, with a virus. [1] and [2]

Question: How wide spread is the use of diebold voting machines? Anyone have info on this?

I have seen them as far away as small ferry ports in Thailand, File:Http://

The following quotes are really flamebait.

I don't see what makes them flamebait or why they should all be deleted. They are certainly shocking and funny (in a dark sort of way) but so what? They are accurate, pertinent and revealing. I'd like to see at least a few of them go back, perhaps in a new section near the end like "Quotations from Internal Diebold Documents" --LeeHunter 00:37, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The may also be copyright, though fair use could cover our use. Noting that there is controversy about the election systems is on topic. Noting that documents exist, and links to them is on topic. The exceprts are not - at least not now when they make up the majority of the artical. One good sample might a good idea though.

“Elections are not rocket science. Why is it so hard to get things right! I have never been at any other company that has been so miss [sic] managed.” [3]

“I have become increasingly concerned about the apparent lack of concern over the practice of writing contracts to provide products and services which do not exist and then attempting to build these items on an unreasonable timetable with no written plan, little to no time for testing, and minimal resources. It also seems to be an accepted practice to exaggerate our progress and functionality to our customers and ourselves then make excuses at delivery time when these products and services do not meet expectations.” [4]

“I feel that over the next year, if the current management team stays in place, the Global [Election Management System] working environment will continue to be a chaotic mess. Global management has and will be doing the best to keep their jobs at the expense of employees. Unrealistic goals will be placed on current employees, they will fail to achieve them. If Diebold wants to keep things the same for the time being, this will only compound an already dysfunctional company. Due to the lack of leadership, vision, and self-preserving nature of the current management, the future growth of this company will continue to stagnate until change comes.” [5]

“[T]he bugzilla historic data recovery process is complete. Some bugs were irrecoverably lost and they will have to be re-found and re-submitted, but overall the loss was relatively minor.” [6]

“28 of 114 or about 1 in 4 precincts called in this AM with either memory card issues "please re-insert", units that wouldn't take ballots - even after recycling power, or units that needed to be recycled. We reburned 7 memory cards, 4 of which we didn't need to, but they were far enough away that we didn't know what we'd find when we got there (bad rover communication).” [7]

“If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.” [8]

“I need some answers! Our department is being audited by the County. I have been waiting for someone to give me an explanation as to why Precinct 216 gave Al Gore a minus 16022 when it was uploaded. Will someone please explain this so that I have the information to give the auditor instead of standing here "looking dumb".” [9]

“[...] while reading some of Paranoid Bev’s scribbling.” [10]

“Johnson County, KS will be doing Central Count for their mail in ballots. They will also be processing these ballots in advance of the closing of polls on election day. They would like to log into the Audit Log an entry for Previewing any Election Total Reports. They need this, to prove to the media, as well as, any candidates & lawyers, that they did not view or print any Election Results before the Polls closed. However, if there is a way that we can disable the reporting functionality, that would be even better.” [11] (emphasis added)

“4K Smart cards which had never been previously programmed are being recognized by the Card Manager as manager cards. When a virgin card from CardLogix is inserted into a Spyrus (have tried CM-0-2-9 and CM-1-1-1) the prompt "Upgrade Mgr Card?" is displayed. Pressing the ENTER key creates a valid manager card. This happens in Admin mode and Election mode.” [12] One Member's Position

“[I am] committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President next year.” Walden O'Dell, CEO of Diebold, in mid-2003 invitation to Republican fundraiser at his home in September[13] 17:27, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This article is not an article at all. It's a journalistic hit piece. I do not like black box voting at all and Diebold sounds like horrible (not to mention doomed) technology to me (I prefer paper or punch card systems), but this article is so POV and so poorly written that I could barely scratch the surface when trying to NPOV it. I strongly suspect it would be better to throw it out and start over again. Has anyone remotely capable of dispassionate writing authored any of this article? Daniel Quinlan 09:52, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)

Working on the NPOV edits (more like rewrite). I have a question about the statement that "The software architecture common to both [Election Systems & Software, Inc. and Diebold Election Systems, Inc.] is a creation of Mr. Urosevich's company I-Mark." I can't find any support for this statement, and I get the sense that it is a misconception. Can anyone confirm or deny this statement? I'll look into it further later on. Right now, I'm going to sleep. -- Anthony DiPierro 09:12, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Jim March, an electronic voting activist, has made a number of posts on slashdot with some excellent information: [14] [15] [16]. They include a lot of interesting information, like how the head programmer of the GEMS system was previously arrested for computer-aided accounting fraud. This should probably be integrated into the article in an NPOV manner. --NeuronExMachina 07:42, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

from article[edit]

Smuj added :

In a fundraising letter to Republicans, Walden O'Dell wrote he was, "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president [G.W.Bush]."

While this is true, it shouldn't just be stuck at the top of the article like it was. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 02:02, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Diebold Election Systems[edit]

Is there any reason to have a separate article at Diebold Election Systems? It would make sense if there were a lot to say about Diebold relating to its other divisions or general corporate history or whatever, but the Diebold article is entirely about voting machines. I don't know how much anyone would ever be moved to write about Diebold's ATM machines and the like. I suggest merging the DES information here and converting Diebold Election Systems into a redirect. JamesMLane 07:21, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, Diebold is encyclopedia worthy only because of DES. --Zenyu 13:54, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
I don't think we should do away with the Diebold article - it should just describe the company from a NPOV. The controversy is really about the election systems division -- their ATMs aren't controversial, right? So we should move the stuff about voting machines to Diebold Election Systems and merge, I believe.Bryan 16:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Somehow we ended up with both articles, and the same material in both. As someone points out below, the DES is only a few percent of the company's business. OTOH, that is the portion which generates the news and controversy and which overwhelms the rest of the article. We can decide again if they should be merged (for real this time) or not. Perhaps it would be easier to edit the DES material with it as a separate entity. It's poorly organized now, neither chronological nor thematic. This is an election year so our DES coverage will become increasingly important. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I pulled *this* tidbit out for grammar and verification reasons. I would like a cite for Procomp being involved with Diebold Election systems, and this should probably go in the Diebold Election Systems article. "The electronic voting technology was supported by his subsidiary in South America, PROCOMP, which have the know-how of this since the '90."

Passive voice etc[edit]

From the article:

The term "black box voting" was coined to describe machines that, like those made by Diebold, use closed source software, do not print paper ballots, and do not use any reliable digital authentication techniques.

Who coined it? -- Bruno Latour (1987) uses the term "blackboxing" (as one word) to describe the process of obscuring the process of knowledge making.

Some experts claim that this structure is easily compromised...

Which experts?

I urge anyone who can answer these questions to do so, in order to Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms. Graue 23:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Our own article on Black Box Voting both notes the name of the coiner of the term and provides a semi-credible cite. -Anon

This ref link at the bottom is dead. Couldn't find a replacement. Not sure if quote should be removed if it has no ref.

Thanks for noticing that. I replaced it with a different link to the same article. -Willmcw 17:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Diebold safes?[edit]

Any connection to the Diebold Corporation in Ohio that Eliot Ness was chairman of after Capone was nabbed? -Fuzzy 20:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Never mind. I see the brief mention up top of them manufacturing vaults. I lost it in the massive tide of voting controversy. -Fuzzy 20:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Diebold CEO leaves (someone add this please)[edit]

--grazon 21:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

In your article the CEO did leave. The threatened lawsuit is mentioned. There is now a PR Newswire article about the *filed* lawsuit we could link:

I don't know if that last link is appropriate for the article, so I'm not adding it.

Notice The Relative Financial Importance of Election Systems to Diebold[edit]

If you look at Diebold's Q1 '05 SEC filing, you'll observe that election systems are about 2.4% of Diebold's global sales revenue. It might be worthwhile to put this surprising tidbit in the article. Cite:

Excerpt from Q1 '05 SEC filing:

Revenue Summary by Products and Services

                                          For the quarter ended
                                                March 31:
                                                  2005      2004
                                         ------------- ---------
 Financial self-service:
 Products                                    $ 173,347 $ 154,262
 Services                                      215,156   207,495
                                         ------------- ---------
 Total financial self-service                  388,503   361,757
 Products                                       62,535    57,415
 Services                                       83,340    64,210
                                         ------------- ---------
 Total security                                145,875   121,625
                                         ------------- ---------
 Total financial self-service  security       534,378   483,382
 Election systems                                5,856    14,873
                                         ------------- ---------
 Total Revenue                               $ 540,234 $ 498,255  

Cite: -> Click on 5-May-05 10-Q Quarterly Report Full Filing at EDGAR

Please note that this section was added by what seems to be a Diebold-owned machine. If you look at contributions of this IP, you'll notice deletion of sections critical of the company, and a wholesale page replacement. I find this data highly suspect- I'm certain yearly sales or even 4-year sales of election systems would not be proportionate to this "surprising tidbit". Election system contracts may not be closed every quarter, which could explain this particular figure. That, and Diebold wouldn't be the first company (or least likely) to cook their books. What was the "contributor" trying to pull here, and can we remove this section? MJKazin 18:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no prohibition on company employees posting material on article talk pages. The above material is publicly available and is audited. Let's not go overboard. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Where's the headquarters[edit]

A while back I corrected the location of the Diebold headquarters in this article, changing it from North Canton to Green. Today it was changed back, with a reference to Diebold's own web page. I'll explain why I changed it to Green. The address for the headquarters on the web page is

Diebold World Headquarters Canton, Ohio, USA 5995 Mayfair Road North Canton, OH 44720

This appears to indicate that the headquarters is in North Canton. I looked up the address in, though, and found that the location is just north of Mt. Pleasant Rd. Unfortunately I can't find an online map with boundaries, but I looked in my Commercial Survey map of Akron, Summit and Portage Counties and found that Mt. Pleasant Road forms the boundary between Summit and Stark counties, with Green being to the north and Jackson Township to the south. North Canton is south of that line. In fact, the road is only called Mayfair in Green. It is called Pittsburg Rd. south south of Mt. Pleasant. What happened was that Green is only recently a city, and before that it was served by a variety of post offices outside of its boundaries. This area is served by the North Canton post office, but the headquarters physically resides in Green. --Beirne 00:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Diebold HQ Location[edit]

Whoops. I did the edit to North Canton. I'm actually in Green, and I never realized Diebold HQ was as well. They also have a satellite office (a field service branch) in Green, which humorously enough has a Uniontown ZIP code. My sincerest apologies.

Why John Diebold and Choicepoint in the article?[edit]

The See Also lines include reference to John Diebold and Choicepoint. Is John Diebold the business management expert from the same family that founded the Diebold, Inc. in this article? I spent 15 minutes Googling and found no direct link mentioned between the two. One article discussed Diebold voting machines and John Diebold together, but did not establish a direct relationship. It makes sense to have a link to him in any case to steer the misdirected, I suppose, but it might make sense to have a disclaimer if there isn't a relationship, lest we confuse someone. Choicepoint does come up in discussions of voting irregularities, etc. Perhaps the Choicepoint link belongs on the Diebold Election Systems page?

I agree. The John Diebold of the article seems to have had nothing to do with the subject of this article. Choicepoint is only tangentially related to DES, as part of the election-related controversy even though they do not make voting systems. -Willmcw 05:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
What a strange coincidence. John Diebold apparently was an early supporter of automated teller machines, so I assumed there was a link. Captain Zyrain 18:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Voting machine[edit]

They have a voting machine called "Diebold AccuVote TS".

National Election Data Archive information[edit]

The National Election Data Archive, headed by Kathy Dopp, keeps current with information, articles and analysis on the Diebold machines.

Here is the link: National Election Data Archive

Deletion of electronic voting additions from Jklappenbach[edit]

I'm the one who's been putting each new Diebold outrage into the Security Concerns section - so believe me that I'm on your side in this issue. But what's been added is not directly relevant to Diebold [and Soapboxing as well, to be perfectly frank - however much I agree with it], so it really can't stay. I would suggest putting that kind of material into Electronic_voting#Opposition_to_Electronic_Voting. Ribonucleic 00:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The material on the voting belongs in Diebold Election Systems. This article is devoted to the much larger parent company. -Will Beback 04:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

ABC News on security concerns[edit]

Not sure if this is the right article for it, but ABC News has an article [17] on electronic voting and come security concerns. An interesting quote from a computer security expert:

  • Diebold's "system is utterly unsecured. The entire cyber-security community is begging them to come back to reality and secure our nation's voting."

If the concerns are really that serious then I think the article needs to reflect this.

No, this is not the right article. You want Diebold Election Systems. -Will Beback 03:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

DES disambiguation link on top of the page[edit]

This link led directly to the Security Concerns section, instead of just the article. I've since fixed it.

Fair use rationale for Image:Diebold logo.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Diebold logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use response[edit]

See Image:Diebold logo.png

Anonymous edits from Diebold[edit]

Seems Diebold has some habit of editing wikipedia for their own benifit. May I suggest that someone who knows this article read over & summarize Diebold's past modifications? It'll help everyone recognize them when they eventualyl start using named accounts. JeffBurdges 14:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be the anon involved. The vandalism occured almost 2 years ago and isn't ongoing (and of course we're under the eye of the media on this), so I don't think wikipedia needs to react. There should be some kind of collaboration though to look through this list and fix any outstanding edits --frotht 17:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for jumping in with my own two cents, but isn't the fact that Diebold tried to suppress criticism by vandalizing Wikipedia noteworthy? If I were writing a report, say for a high school writing class, the fact that they try to suppress journalistic efforts would be of extreme interest. In fact, I can't imagine their vandalism not being noteworthy. Comments? Sliver 19:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
It is noteworthy to the extent that it has been noted in a reliable source, such as Wired. Vandalism that we observe on our own is non-notable and reporting it would be original research. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The fact that edits were made from someone at Diebold whitewashing Diebold's page at Wikipedia is not, in my estimation, all that notable. Keep in mind that this wasn't the execution of some internal policy, but simply some single individual going to town on the Wikipedia article, probably while they were bored at work. It's often difficult to take a step back in these situations and ask whether this sort of thing is notable, or only feels notable because it lands so close to home. The general rule of thumb I use is, would another encyclopedia mention this in an article about Diebold? Would it belong in an article 100 years from now, looking back at the full sweep of the company's activities? I would say no. JDoorjam JDiscourse 20:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Not notable! Not notable! How the heck can you say that this isn't notable! We don't KNOW that it was someone bored at work making an edit. And why would they? The chances of it getting caught and resulting in bad press for them was too great, and this bored office worker may well have lost his job. But if a higherup was involved, then that would make more sense. I'd say malicious edits to cover up bad press are pretty damn important, and easilly worth a mention. Wikipedia has things of lower importance than this.--Tapok 21:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Doorjam, I don't think your test is a very good one. Wikipedia is not like "other encyclopedias". We have the luxury of including vast amounts of otherwise useful and interesting data that space considerations would kill in a dead-tree encyclopedia. The canonical example, Britannica, can only put so much on a page before it runs into prohibitive printing, editing, paper, and volume costs. We at Wikipedia have none of these. We are free to include anything we find worthy of the idealized encyclopedia -- one not bound by money or size. Are you seriously saying the metric we should apply to ourselves is the same metric by which dead-tree encyclopedias MUST abide by? I sincerely hope this isn't what you're saying, because it's an indefensible position.
I submit that one metric we ought to be using is the metric of relevancy and historical significance. A much better metric than the dead-tree metric is the high school student metric. If it's worthy of a high school report, then it's worthy of Wikipedia (my high school metric is a sufficient, not necessary, condition, of course. A high school student would never reproduce the Kirchhoff diffraction integration details). In any event, I think the original research argument has merit, but I still say the fact that vandalism from the Diebold IP block occurred.
I'm sufficiently on the fence post about this to not fight for it. However, if someone can demonstrate that Diebold has, in the past, engaged in similar behavior in the past, then I think even the "original research" argument falls to pieces. Anyone familiar with similar cases in which Diebold suppressed negative press about itself? Sliver 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I doubt the edits are notable unless some news agency reviels the source. You may research the source yourself and write about it at wikinews, but I imagine your trail is cold. People have already categloged these edits below. So everyone can easily see the editor a Diebold emploie might make. And thus they can't hide behind named accounts as easily. I'd say that's all that matters here. JeffBurdges 12:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't remember the name of the agency, but didn't the article for a US gov. department include a note of the positive editing done by employees? Alastairward 11:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

To their own article? Or generally? JeffBurdges 12:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys! I'm the Diebold employee that made at least some of the anonymous edits. I was posting from my desk at work while bored. I had just discovered that you didn't have to register with Wikipedia to make edits, and had no clue that there was a rule against a company's employees editing the company's Wiki entry. I must have missed that disclaimer when I made the edits. In fact, I didn't read that there was a rule against if for another 3 months, when it was mentioned on a message board I follow. I don't work in PR, nor am I an executive or shareholder relations person of any type. In fact, I don't manage anyone, nor am I employed by the voting machines division. It was a good fath edit in the spirit of enhancing Wikipedia, and I have to say it hurts my feelings to be accused of vandalism; I wouldn't even lie to protect the company's reputation, much less stoop to vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory[edit]

And this might be the latest effort by Diebold/CIA:

{Also that same month, Diebold was at the center of a scandal involving Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney's victory in the Iowa Straw Poll. In that non-binding poll, it has been reported that at least one Diebold machine has failed resulting in a recount that delayed results.[1] Other information suggests that the reason why the machine "malfunctioned" was to keep candidate Ron Paul from gaining in the polls where an outright victory would lend credibility to his campaign.[2] Meanwhile, an Iowa Independent article points out that Rommey has joked about cheating to win the straw poll.[3]}

All the above talks about is the questionable result of the Iowa Straw Poll and it even includes references. 17:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Major edits from Diebold IPs[edit]

This article has been subject to major past edits from Diebold IPs, portraying Diebold in a more favorable light. I have added a COI and disputed tag to the article until this issue is resolved. See here for details: Ultiam 07:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I checked those edits (the most recent was in 2005) and can't find a single one which is still in the article. Most were deleitons of negative material that were reverted immediately. I've removed theCOI tag, but if you can identify a curent issue we can restore it and fix the problem. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

All of these diffs (from the above wikiscanner link) contain changes which have not been re-incorporated into the article:
Dan 10:03, 26 August 2007 (GMT)

This was mentioned on TWIT this week, keep your eyes open for well-meaning people. Tuor 14:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No, all of the edits above were reverted.--P4k 22:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Election content in main article[edit]

Recent edits by User:Manufacturedthoughts have been removed because they do not relate to this article. I believe they would be better served in the Premier Election Solutions entry. Anyone besides the author disagree? The author left a unsigned message on my talk page threatening to revert the edit every day. --Electiontechnology (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Detailed material can be moved to a daughter article (such as, in this case, the article about a corporate subsidiary), but only if an appropriate summary is left behind in the main article. A mere cross-reference is not enough. Diebold has been in the news more for election-related issues than for anything else, and a reader wanting a full picture of the entire corporation deserves at least some information about the controversies surrounding the subsidiary. JamesMLane t c 23:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
JamesMLane, did you see that there is a section in this artice on the voting system manufacturer? There's also a controversy section as well. What more would you like? -- (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The section on the subsidiary that manufactures voting systems says only, "This subsidiary has been the subject of controversy amid allegations surrounding the security and reliability of some of its products." The controversy section doesn't mention the major security issues that have been raised concerning the products of Diebold Election Systems (now Premier Election Solutions). Thus, neither of these is adequate. There should be a passage beginning with something like "Critics have charged that the company's machines can readily be tampered with and do not meet security standards." That introduction would be followed by at least a paragraph summarizing the information from Premier Election Solutions#Security issues. It's relevant to the Diebold article for the reader to get some inkling of how computer professionals have evaluated the systems and how several people have demonstrated the point by successful hacks. Some of the material in other sections of that article should also be mentioned here. JamesMLane t c 02:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that information is certainly relevant and should be on wiki. Where is the question. Technically and legally speaking, the equipment in question isn't manufactured by Diebold. That business was spun off to Premier Election Solutions and is a separate company. While that company is owned by Diebold, thats a financial relationship not necessarily anything more. I'm certainly of the mind that this info is relevant, sourced and meets wiki standards, but I don't think it belongs in detail on this article. I think details of the vulnerabilities belong on article of the company that produces it, and that the parent company article should have a sentence or two directing folks there for details.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dman727 (talkcontribs) 02:57, 15 July 2008
According to our article, it wasn't "spun off", a phrase that's used when part of a business becomes an independent company. Rather, Diebold acquired the assets of an unrelated company and formed a new wholly owned subsidiary to compete in this field. It's evidently still a wholly owned subsidiary, despite its name change. That means that it's separately incorporated but is not an independent company for many other purposes, such as SEC filings. If Congress were to prohibit electronic voting nationwide, Diebold's stock would drop, because its sub's business would be affected. Also, as a practical matter, despite the sub's name change, the word "Diebold" still conjures up "electronic voting" in many people's minds. The average reader coming to this article would expect to see some information about the alleged flaws of what are commonly referred to as "Diebold" machines. JamesMLane t c 04:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the issue here is one relating to a spin off vs a subsidiary. The issue here is what content in relevant to what article. While, as you point out, it is common for the Diebold name to be associated with electronic voting, it is still only a small fraction of the business done by Diebold, Inc. Regardless, the article makes it very clear the connection from the parent company and provides information and clear links to further information (a subsection and a link at the top of the article). I don't think simply duplicating information from another article is helpful or the correct course of action. However, I would recommend make suggestions here about new content and hopefully we can come to a consensus. -- (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree. While folks interested in electronic voting aspects strongly associated Diebold to electronic voting, if you were to poll banking professionals about Diebold, you would find that most are familiar because of their ATM equipment. As to why Diebold separated voting into a seperate entity, we can speculate and come up with pretty good guesses (i.e. PR for one), but that becomes an WP:OR issue. In the final analysis, Premier Election Solutions is a separate corporation that is in the business of Electronic Voting and Diebold is not. Nonetheless, there is a strong historical and financial relationship between the 2 companys and its reasonable to assume that some folks looking for electronic voting information will come to Diebold. Thats why I support have a short paragraph in this article that acknowledges that Diebold was previously in the electronic voting business, however that its now operated by Premier Election Solutions. Dman727 (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The short paragraph that you describe would obviously be essential but is clearly not enough under the guideline of Wikipedia:Summary style. Of course, there's no automatic rule for deciding how much information should be in the summary in the main article. It is explicit, however, that some duplication of information between articles is not only permitted, but is required. In this instance, the choice is clear. Yes, some banking professionals might think first of ATM's, and I wouldn't object to the addition of more ATM information to the Diebold article. Most readers aren't banking professionals, though, and many of them would want at least some information about the substance of the concerns about Diebold's subsidiary's voting systems. JamesMLane t c 07:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The issues and concerns over voting system should obviously be flushed out and well covered, I just think it should be attached to the company associated with the equipment. There is no need to fully flush it out in duplicate here. Folks smart enough to click their way onto WIKI to read about Diebold, are also smart enough to make one more click when they find introductory material here to the actual article. Dman727 (talk) 08:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Your suggestion would be one way to set up articles, but it's not the way that's been adopted on Wikipedia. The summary in the main article has two purposes. First, some people reading the Diebold article will indeed be "smart enough" to click the wikilink to get full detail about this Diebold sub, but they might not want full detail about it; they might want only the basics because they want a general overview of the company, not a full exploration of each aspect. That still means that some information about the election controversies is appropriate for them, though. A second reason is that some readers, regardless of how smart they are, won't know whether to click through unless they're given some indication of what they'll find at the daughter article. Merely saying that there are allegations doesn't tell them enough about the nature of the allegations and the extent of the support for them. A proper summary will leave some readers thinking, "OK, that's all I need to know about that aspect," and will leave other readers thinking, "Great, now I know that, given my interests, this daughter article is worth reading." The current text, essentially just a link with a cursory annotation, doesn't accomplish either purpose. There's a middle ground between the current version and "fully flush[ing] it out in duplicate here". I stress again that the guideline requires some duplication. JamesMLane t c 10:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering Diebold voting machines stuffed up in the 2004 election, considering the Diebold CEO donated lots of money to Bush's re-election campaign in 2004, I think it would be a crime NOT to mention it. Timeshift (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think much of Diebold either, but our personal opinions of their politics and/or competence is something that we really have to avoid letting influence the article. These articles are not our soapboxes and wiki is not intended to be a battleground.Dman727 (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
You're absolutely right that our personal opinions are irrelevant. What is relevant is the Wikipedia:Summary style guideline, as I've elaborated in my concurrent comment above. JamesMLane t c 07:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say how it should be written, but that it should be written. Is there something I said that you dispute? Diebold (Premier) voting machines malfunctioned in the very tight presidential election of 2004. The Diebold CEO was donating to the re-elect Bush fund. If you dispute one of these let me know, if not then it warrants inclusion whilst maintaining WP:NPOV. Timeshift (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
No need for harsh tones. I fully support adding how the machines screwed up to the appropriate article. As for the donations. If they are unusual and noteworthy they it should be included as well if they are properly sourced. If the Diebold CEO made notable political contributions they should proably be on this page. Voting equipment issues should be addressed, IMO, on the Premier Election Solutions page as I discussed above. My caution regarding personal opinions, was prompted by the fact that this article such as these tend to attract Internet Keyboard Warriors. Please forgive if I say so, your original comment sounded a bit like WP:SOAP might be in play. If thats not the case then please accept my apology. Dman727 (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
JamesMLane, I simply disagree with your interpretation of the Wikipedia:Summary style guideline. I think the article does follow it correctly. Timeshift, I'm concerned everyone in this coversation hasn't reviewed the Diebold entry in great detail. The article does include the information you metioned. (no WP "crime" committed) Again, I recommend suggesting changes here. It seems we have a good discussion going and hopefully a consensus will improve the article. -- (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
To follow up, you clearly don't need to be a banker to know Diebold doesn't just do voting machines. As the references I've added / adjusted in the main article show, Diebold is the largest manufacturer of ATMs in the US and the election business is their smallest business segment. Most Americans can't walk into a bank without seeing a Diebold logo on door locks, ATM, security system, etc. -- (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


  • In August 2007, Wikipedia Scanner found that edits via the company's IP addresses occurred to Diebold's Wikipedia article, removing criticisms of the company's products, references to its CEO's fund-raising for President Bush and other negative criticism from the Wikipedia page about the company in November 2005.<ref name="Elsworth">Elsworth,Catherine. "[ Wikipedia Sleuth's tool reveals entry fiddling]." ''[[Telegraph]].'' [[April 16]], [[2007]]. </ref>

An editor removed this material with the comment, don't crucify them just because they removed stuff from the project.[18] Editors should read the previous discussion on this page. The controversies over conflict of interest editing that was revealed by WikiScanner is covered on many relevant pages.[19] This article should be treat in a consistent manner with other articles. While we only cite one media reference here, as I recall it made the news in many outlets. There is no requirement that incidents be the main topic of a news story in order to be reported here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

But it cannot actually be considered newsworthy because it had one or two lines in a news report. What was the reasoning for it being added to every other article on that list? How is it even notable? It seems to disparge the subject further, showing that they're more untrustworthy than they actually are. No one can verify the person was acting on behalf of the company in any of the subjects that the Wikiscanner incidents are linked to. Its all about proof, and what can be proven. Maybe this issue needs to be taken somewhere else for a third opinion. Metagraph comment 04:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Have you read the contents of this page? This has been discussed several times before. One person even claimed to have been responsible for some of the edits and apologizes. The bare facts, which are what we report, are verifiable. The notability is demonstrated by the fact that the press covered it. It doesn't have to be a ten page spread. It is factual, neutrally presented, and verifiable. It meets all the requirements of Wikipedia. If you'd like to get more opinions that's fine. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Im going to elaborate. The news article contains two sentences on the incident, whilst the main focus is on the new tool, Wikipedia Scanner. The editor from the Diebold made various helpful edits [20], [21], then added some material that was in conflict of WP:NPOV; [22] (which was NOT reported by the news and therefore is not notable), then removed innapropriate links; [23]. They then deleted the criticsm section; [24], [25] the edits in question. The source provided states

Diebold, a company that makes electronic voting machines, was among the first culprits exposed by the scanner. Its staff were found to have removed criticisms recording widespread industry concern about the security of its products and its CEO's fund-raising for Preisdent Bush.

The article is actually based on the new tool Wikiscanner, and how it is a helpful addition. It is not based on the edits made by Diebold's employees, and only provides it as an example. Therefore, it was not newsworthy for an article, libious, and should be deleted. I do understand alot of editors are upset about Diebold trying to censor information, I myself believe strongly that COI and censoring information is a bad thing on a great resource like wikipedia, however this should not be on the article as it looks just like an attempt to disparge the subject with no solid proof or even established notability. I therefore call the information be either reworded on EVERY article that contains critism from the WS tool, or deleted outright. Id also like to establish i have no links whatsoever with Diebold or any of the involved people/corporations, I myself only found this article this morning and had not previously heard of the company. Metagraph comment 05:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That Telegraph article is only one of many on the topic. See also "See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign". In that case, it made the headline. See also this list of articles that mention the matter: [26]. I don't think it's an insignificant incident. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hacking Democracy[edit]

'Hacking Democracy', the HBO democracy, extensively covers Diebold's lies and the voter machine corruption and ability to be hacked--thus changes the votes without any proof it was done. I strongly believe it should be added to this article under controversy. I will try to when I have more time, but if anyone wants to--that would be nice. It's on HBO OnDemand. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 00:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's related to voting machines then it belongs in the article on the voting machines division, Premier Election Solutions. That article has a couple of sentences about the documentary, but I'm sure there's room for improvement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

" Wikipedia images stolen)"[edit]

An editor added this material.

If I'm not mistaken, this is original research unless we have a source which makes this assertion. I've removed it until this is covered by a 3rd party. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Founding date change in call out box[edit]

As I explained on my User talk page, I am a Diebold employee working in the corporate communications department. I am in the process of proposing edits to Diebold's article page that are factual in nature and correct outdated or inaccurate information currently in Diebold's article. I propose correcting Diebold's founding date, which is in the right-hand blue callout box. The current date listed on the article page is August 1859. However, in 2009 Diebold celebrated its 150th anniversary, and through research we found that there is no record of the exact month Diebold was founded. We just know that it was founded in the year 1859. So I propose and ask for the removal of "August" and just leave it as "1859." For further reference, here is a link to an article explaining the timeline of Diebold's founding: I will await feedback from anyone about correcting this date. Rebekah Boyd (talk) 13:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

{{helpme}} I have not received any feedback on my proposal about updating the founding date on Diebold's page. I would like to have consensus to make this change. Thank you. Rebekah Boyd (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

As there have been no objections, go ahead. JohnCD (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, JohnCD. I have made this change to the Diebold entry. Rebekah Boyd (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"Area served" in call out box[edit]

I propose that in the "Area served" section in the call out box that public libraries be removed from this section. Diebold does not actively serve public libraries today. For further reference, here is a brief overview on Diebold's website explaining the business: I look forward to any feedback on this proposed change. Rebekah Boyd (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

{{helpme}} I have not received any feedback on my proposal about removing public libraries from the "Area Served" section. I would like to have consensus to make this change. Thank you. Rebekah Boyd (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Same here, no problem, make the change. JohnCD (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you again, JohnCD. I have made this edit to the Diebold entry. Rebekah Boyd (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"Key People" section in call out box[edit]

A correction is needed for the "Key People" section in the call out box. Sean Forrester's name should be removed, as he is no longer CIO at Diebold. I propose to remove his name. I would recommend and propose possibly adding the names of other key people at Diebold. They are as follows: Bradley C. Richardson, Executive Vice President and CFO; James Chen, Executive Vice President, International Operations; Charles E. Ducey, Jr., Executive Vice President, North America Operations; and George S. Mayes, Jr., Executive Vice President, Global Operations. Here is Diebold's Leadership Team page for reference: I will await feedback on this proposed change. Rebekah Boyd (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"Products" section in call out box[edit]

In the "Products" section in the call out box, I propose to change the section title to "Products and Services." Diebold not only sells products and solutions, but is a services provider as well-- Services is an integral part of Diebold today and moving forward. I also propose to add "outsourcing services" to the list of products and services, as this phrase describes the services Diebold provides. Other weblinks explaining Diebold's services business can be found at: and I would welcome any feedback on how to appropriately update this section of the article. Rebekah Boyd (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

They do not sell "solutions"! The use of the term "solutions" in this kind of article is a very ugly clue that promotion is going on. You may sell software, or services, or hardware; but "solutions" should refer to solutes dissolved in a solvent, or to the answer to a mathematical equation. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not proposing that the term "solutions" be added to the Diebold article. When I used that term in my original proposal above, I did not mean to confuse or to infer that I would like this term to be added. I am simply proposing that the section title be changed to "Products and Services"-- to reflect the fact that Diebold is a services provider. And then I am proposing that the term "outsourcing services" be added to the list of products and services Diebold sells. Diebold's services business accounts for more than 50% of Diebold's revenue... see link in 2009 Annual Report, which states this: The fact that Diebold sells services is not currently reflected in the call out box. Rebekah Boyd (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"Subsidiaries" section in call out box[edit]

Currently, Procomp Industria Eletronica S.A. is listed as a subsidiary of Diebold. However, this is not the only subsidiary Diebold has. Because Diebold has many subsidiaries-- too many to list in the call out box-- I would recommend/propose either linking to the following weblinks from our 2009 Annual Report, which list all of Diebold's current subsidiaries:,,,, Or I would recommend removing this section from the call out box altogether. I will await feedback on this proposed change. Rebekah Boyd (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

First sentence change / description of company[edit]

Currently in the first sentence, Diebold is described as "a United States-based security systems corporation." This description is not completely accurate as security is not the only business of Diebold. I propose the phrase in the first sentence be changed to "a United States-based financial self-service, security solutions and services corporation," as this description seems to more accurately reflect Diebold's offerings as a whole. For further reference of Diebold's business offering descriptions, you can visit: I look forward to feedback on this proposed change. Rebekah Boyd (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

{{helpme}} I have not received any feedback on my proposal about updating the description of the company in the first sentence. I would like to have consensus to make this change. Thank you. Rebekah Boyd (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

As there have been no objections, you may go ahead and make this change. JohnCD (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, JohnCD. I have made this change. Rebekah Boyd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Premier Election Solutions[edit]

The beginning of this section is currently written in present tense. Because Diebold has sold this business, I would propose this section be updated and written in past tense. For example, "Premier Election Solutions, formerly Diebold Election Systems, was a subsidiary of Diebold and was their smallest business segment..." Again, I will await feedback on this proposed change. Rebekah Boyd (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

{{helpme}} I have not received any feedback on my proposal above about updating the Premier Election Solutions section to past tense on Diebold's page. I would like to have consensus to make this change. Thank you. Rebekah Boyd (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

As above: go ahead. Thank you for asking first. JohnCD (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, JohnCD. I have made these updates to this section. Rebekah Boyd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^