Talk:2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Separate heading for official events

Currently the "Conduct and concerns" section is hard to follow, in that official statements are mixed together with criticism from news and opinion pieces. Moreover, I think preliminary findings from the July 15th hearing should be presented separately altogether in order to maintain proper WP:NPOV. In other words, separate the audit itself from the criticism for readability and perceived bias. I did this in my edit but it seems to have since been merged into the "Conduct and concerns" heading. I have also been looking for some articles summarizing the hearing to use as sources for bullet points under the "Preliminary findings" heading I had made, but those articles seem to be perplexingly hard to find using major search engines. I know they exist, I've seen them, I just can't find them anymore. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I might also add that the article is filled with so much criticism it's hard to tell what's actually happening. It might be appropriate to separate out the criticism under its own heading and/or tone it down a little, not every bit of activity from key people needs to be immediately countered in the same sentence. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Slate tells that CyberNinjas are "cooking the books" -- let's take care not to be complicit in deceiving fools with their comical fraud. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Broken link. It doesn't matter anyway since it's an official audit authorized by the Arizona Senate and as such their findings cannot be dismissed just because we don't like them. I have seen smear pieces regarding audits since November of last year, at some point you become numb to their nitpicking. If you have anything objective to add then I welcome that but Slate writers have a long record of not liking the audits. So far the most substantial criticism I've seen is officials denying their claims; which doesn't actually prove anything beyond disagreement. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I believe the link Hyperbolick is looking for is this one. According to WP:RSP, "Slate is considered generally reliable for its areas of expertise. Contrarian news articles may need to be attributed". Even so, I would definitely want to see more sources beyond that reporting on such an allegation before including it here. The Slate headline referencing "cooking the books" does not appear to reflect an actual quote from Bennett, who has merely offered data indicating that the Maricopa County elections office got the count roughly correct, which is what observers would typically expect. Normally, an election audit features at least daily reports of counts being made, which we have not seen here. To date, there has not been a single report of a "smoking gun": no actual ballots made of bamboo, no substantial number of ballots identifiably cast for one candidate but counted for another. Absent such a finding, what we seem to have are areas where process improvements could make the election more transparently clear. BD2412 T 23:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

There's clearly something which doesn't add up in that article.

The data Bennett provided to the outside analysts, Larry Moore and Benny White, showed the results of the ongoing machine count of the ballots tracks very closely with the county’s tally.

Typically, Bennett has not been allowed to see the audit’s final tally—which Fann confirmed earlier this month would differ from the official count—even though the audit was completed weeks ago.

Those statements are unlikely to be true at the same time; either he shared the numbers with two outside parties or he wasn't allowed to see the numbers. There are of course some special set of circumstances where that could happen anyway, like him going beyond his authorized access to copy the numbers and leak them, but then it would be highly unlikely he would publicly share statements which would implicate him for that crime. It therefore stands to reason one of those two paragraphs cannot be taken at face value, and as such I would advice against using it as a source on the basis that non-native English speakers might struggle to make sense of the article or misinterpret it. Aside from, among other things, the fact that the article is littered with personal opinions from its author Jeremy Stahl. Including personal speculation on the outcome of the audit, priming the reader to think that if his prediction is true then other speculative statements from him are likely to be right. That particular form of priming is not something I take lightly when it comes from someone who is a journalist by profession. He's a professional and should know better. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

If he's supervising the count, by definition there can not be anything beyond his "authorized" access. There is a difference between someone seeing things they are not allowed to see, and a supervisor seeing things they are obviously allowed to see, but which are being concealed from them. It is just not conceivable that in a legitimate and transparent process, the numbers would be kept from the supervisor of that very process. BD2412 T 00:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

To my knowledge Ken Bennet is the Arizona Senate liaison, not a supervisor per se. His primary purpose is to serve as the official eyes and ears of the Arizona Senate. Don't get me wrong, it implies a great deal of access, but it's an important distinction in some contexts. With that out of the way; the point I'm making is that if he is leaking the information then he obviously has access to it, but then he cannot at the same time have been denied access, unless he also violated his access restriction. In other words, either one of the two conditions I just mentioned must be false or it implies the third. It's a matter of logic. No matter which of the three scenarios it is, the article isn't doing a good job of answering that. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Porpoise, may I share with you my impression of what's going on? Imagine you’re in a long-standing feud with your next-door neighbor. One day, watching out the window, you see your neighbor brutally stranging a young woman. They move out of view and you cannot see what happens next. You cannot call the police as everybody knows of your feud, and they won’t believe or respond to it. The next day you search your neighbor's yard to see if perhaps they’ve buried the body, but can find no obvious evidence of it. You don't want your neighbor to get away with the crime, so you find a woman similar to the one you saw being strangled and bring her home and strangle her yourself, then bury her in your neighbor's yard, so the police can find the body and your neighbor can be convicted of the murder you know he committed. You may certainly be justified in desiring to see your neighbor pay for the crime, but at the same time must be flawless in setting up the evidence thusly. I have heard too many half-rumors to this point of bad actors amongst the Arizona auditors secretly destroying disagreeable ballots or slyly modifying ballots to change them from their original vote, or adding fake ballots to the collection, to have faith in the outcome of the process, even if the intent of its organizers is to expose a wrong they're sure they saw happening. At the very least they ought to investigate these rumors and make sure no such thing has happened. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Wow, that got really dark really fast. I'd rather you hadn't put it in those terms. Anyway, I've heard a lot of slander/libel from both sides of the issue. Republicans accusing Democrats of injecting fraudulent ballots and destroying legitimate ballots. Democrats accusing Republicans of the same thing. Can we please stop it with the assignment of sides on every single issue here? This situation is bigger than Maricopa County, bigger than Arizona, even bigger than the US. There's an international audience watching these developments, and for good reason. Lately a lot of odd political developments have happened in the EU and local polls show both a more polarized political climate than ever, while simultaneously diverging a lot from historical trends. In short, a lot of people are starting to suspect the polls are rigged, and given the attention given to this audit (both positive and negative depending on where you look) a lot of the same people are pointing the finger at the US. I know because I'm living in the middle of it and I've seen first hand how local politicians get censored on social media because they didn't follow the US ideals. The issue of censoring topics controversial in the US is now being used in electoral campaigns in preparation for the 2022 election here. Therefore it is of outmost importance this gets thoroughly investigated. If the US won't do it, eventually other countries will. The rest of the world is watching and we're really not liking what we see. So please, can we just put our left vs right perspectives aside and keep this on an objective level without feeding the rumor mill? SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no contradiction in the article. There are two counts: the manual count of the votes by Cyber Ninias, Bennett doesn't know the results of, but Karen Fann said does not match the official election results. And the partial new machine count of the ballots (but not the votes) initiated by the Senate and Bennett, which match the official election results closely, Bennett knows the results of and which he told others which were then leaked. Everything in the article adds up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.213.148.224 (talk • contribs) — 79.213.148.224 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@79.213.148.224: Well that's just more confusing. This particular issue of leaked data is becoming a bit too convoluted for me to follow so I'll take your word on it for now. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

That sounds excessively complicated, and does not alleviate the problem that the state-designated supervisor of the process should know all actual results of the audit process, not have one set of results shown to him while another set is developed from some unsupervised process. That said, however, we would require a reliable source for the claim that there are these multiple counting processes going on. The same applies to the claims by Hyperbolick that changes in the number of votes are the result of auditors adding, removing, or modifying ballots. BD2412 T 21:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Re: BD: no intention of adding rumors at this time. Nor do I state support for the outcome. Quite the opposite, it is frustrating that the missteps of this audit are whittling away support for other audits to be carried out. Taking us farther from resolution of countless lingering questions. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Now that we can agree on, no matter who performs the audit there needs to be a reliable one to settle this once and for all. The problem I see is that, at least as far as I know, this is the third major audit of this election with international coverage. Whatever confidence we Europeans had in that this will ever be resolved with an audit is slipping away by the day. Next year is an election year for 13 European countries, including mine, and some use US made voting machines. If we cannot have confidence in the integrity of those machines then we are facing a very grave situation indeed. Also, even as recently as yesterday the censorship on US-hosted social media platforms became a mainstream talking point as officials from our third largest political party (I think about 20% in the latest opinion polls, largest party has 27%) had posts removed from Twitter.[1] I don't want to go too far off topic but there are plenty more examples where recent US policies have had very real effects on our daily lives. Sorry to go on a long rant about it but I think it's time to point out the importance on an international scale of figuring out what is going on with the audits (and by extension, the 2020 US election equipment and practices).

This is why I have been so insistent on having at least some of the preliminary findings visible in the article, although I do realize a lot of US Wikipedians are probably reluctant to let non-US Wikipedians make changes to the article. I'm trying to respect that as much as I can but having the article appear so one-sided is testing my patience. If that makes me come off as abrasive then I'm sorry, but some of the findings in this audit actually do appear to be backed up by concrete evidence and have been met with very weak "debunking" evidence. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I fear, my friend, I have a far more cynical experience of things then you. There is reason to believe there has not been a legitimate election in the USA for decades. The Establishment Elite comes together well in advance and decides who will "win" and by how many "votes," and the rest is storytelling following a script, and wringing "campaign donations" out of the less fortunate. Then the party operatives "count" the votes per the script. Certainly explains why the McConnell-Rubio-Romney-Murkowski set were so quick to certify the results. Hence my dark take on the whole. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

That might very well be true, I haven't watched US politics particularly closely until about 2016 when even the local news cycle was dominated by Donald Trump. Now, I can't really say I support him, but he did seem to tick off a lot of people I'd associate with the "Establishment Elite" as you put it. I would however include a lot of news sources in that category, lots of perplexingly elaborate smears about things he didn't really say, like the thing about injecting bleach. I couldn't believe he would say something that stupid and sure enough, when I looked at the full video where he said it, it was obviously a joke. You could tell both from the lead-up to it and the tone of voice he used. Since then I've tried to verify the story by following the sources to the sources and often found it was either something taken out of context or deceptive framing. He did say some genuinely stupid stuff too and he was hardly a saint, but it absolutely crumbled my faith in US media. So with that background I always try finding the primary sources first to avoid falling for the context and framing game. So far I think this audit has some merit but we will have to wait for the final report before we know for sure. But even if we set all that aside; don't you find it odd how hard everyone is trying to discredit both the audit itself and every public face connected to it, even before they officially presented anything? I mean if the final report comes out and it's full of obvious lies then have at it, but I can't be the only one thinking it's way too early to go after them, right? SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 05:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Funding for the audit

News today is about the funding. Some of this came from the state, but it's been extended through private donations. This should also be covered in the article. [2] 73.120.83.182 (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Here are the amounts, as reported by AP. "On Wednesday night, Logan ended months of silence about who was paying him when he said a whopping $5.7 million had been contributed by political groups run by prominent Trump supporters including Michael Flynn, Sidney Powell, Patrick Byrne and correspondents from One America News Network. The figure dwarfs the $150,000 to be paid by the Senate." [3] 73.120.83.182 (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Various Twitter accounts suspended

This might warrant inclusion: [4] Readers can draw whatever conclusions they want from the move to suppress audit fans. Apparently this spate of suspensions also includes official audit accounts in different states. 73.120.83.182 (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not suppressing audit fans it's a social media organization stopping disinformation per their established company policies. Here's another source. ––FormalDude^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 02:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

They suspended an official AZ Senate account. It seems that would warrant mention. Or are we to just accept that the government issues misinformation? 73.120.83.182 (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Given that the sources imply that the government issues disinformation, I'm keen to accept it. If you have sources refuting that though please produce them. Although it may still warrant mentioning that Twitter has called out the Arizona state legislature for essentially lying on their platform. ––FormalDude^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) ––FormalDude^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 03:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

If you want to report it in the article that way, have at it, but I think it needs mention. 73.120.83.182 (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Obviously that's not quite a neutral wording, but, regardless, we should wait and see what others have to say about its inclusion. ––FormalDude^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 04:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

This may be a mountain being made out of a molehill. Is this a temporary suspension, or a long-term one? If it only lasts for a limited period of time, I wouldn't include it here. BD2412 T 23:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

It's a ban.[5] soibangla (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a start, but I'd prefer to see information included on related suspensions, as well. 73.120.83.182 (talk) 04:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The BuzzFeed News article has several grave quality issues. Even in just the headline it asserts both that the audit isn't a real audit (it's official and authorized by the Arizona Senate) and that it's pro-Trump (opinion and AFAIK implies criminal malpractice since an audit needs members from both parties to avoid bias, which it has). The rest of the article is immensely biased against the audit itself too, which absolutely does not belong in a source to a statement on Wikipedia regarding banning of Twitter accounts. It's a hard no for me on the BuzzFeed News article for those reasons alone. The article from Phoneix News Time is written in a much more professional manner. The last few paragraphs are a bit lacking in neutrality ("cesspool of misinformation" is enhancing Twitters official stance with a personal opinion), but at least most of it passes my criteria for a reasonably neutral article these days. It's not ideal but I can let it pass if there's no better alternative. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

You are basically flat out lying here.

1. Your characterization of the BF article: It asserts that the audit isn't real

What the article actually says: The official audit account had spread misinformation about the 2020 election. Corroborating source (USA Today)

2. Your characterization of the BF article: It asserts the audit is pro-trump

What the article actually says: The audit accounts are just one way that pro-Trump figures have continued to push the lie that the election was stolen from him. Corroborating source (NPR)

3. Your characterization of the BF article: Immense bias against the audit itself

This one is just a blanket statement with no evidence. There's a plethora of WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS showing the audit is essentially fraud, and to say such is not bias, it is WP:BALANCE whereas you are seeking WP:FALSEBALANCE. Here's a source from AP News that verifies Buzzfeed's characterization of the fraud.

It is more than fine to use the Buzzfeed article as a source, in fact, it should be used given its significance. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 23:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you seriously think you can get away with lies like that? Look at the article as it was before they silently updated it and it's there, clear as day.[6]

Twitter Suspended Nine Accounts That Had Been Promoting Pro-Trump "Audits" Of The 2020 Election

Please do tell how putting audits in quotes isn't trying to downplay their authenticity, how pro-Trump isn't explicitly stated in the article title, or how you could possibly think calling the Maricopa audit the "[...] ongoing, Republican-led audit in Arizona, which is being overseen by a contractor who has spread false conspiracy theories, including in a recent pro-Trump movie." isn't bias. Furthermore, BuzzFeed News is far left biased as a whole[7] and accordingly does not meet WP:NPOV in the context of this Wikipedia article, in addition to the majority of the article in question being a (mislabeled) opinion piece, see WP:RSOPINION. There is no way I'm going to let that article stay as a source if you try to use it anyway without unanimous consensus from Wikipedians, me included. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 10:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@SinglePorpoiseAccount: You're completely missing the point: The audit is unambiguously unauthentic as reported by nearly every significant independent reliable source. (Snopes: Election Conspiracies Live on With Audit by Arizona GOP) (FactCheck.org: Debunking Trump’s Latest Arizona Election Claims)

Second of all, there is consensus that BuzzFeed News is generally reliable. BuzzFeed News operates separately from BuzzFeed and has strong editorial integrity policies. (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#BuzzFeed News)

Lastly, it's not up to you alone what counts as consensus or what stays in the article (see Wikipedia:What is consensus#Not all or nothing). ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 18:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude: None of your listed sources support your claim of the audit being unauthentic, on the contrary both clearly state that it's an official audit.

Then, if you actually look up the discussions on the reliability of BuzzFeed News as a source you'll see the consensus is falling apart, and has been on a sharp downturn since 2019. If you read the summary on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#BuzzFeed News you'll see this:

In light of the staff layoffs at BuzzFeed in January 2019, some editors recommend exercising more caution for BuzzFeed News articles published after this date. The site's opinion pieces should be handled with WP:RSOPINION.

Finally, neither is it up to you to decide what qualifies as a reliable and neutral source, but I can assure you that I will not let myself get bullied into going along with whatever sources you pick. As I understood it you were asking for comments on the sources, I provided mine, and that was the end of it until you went on to accuse me of lying. This is not how you're supposed to handle feedback you asked for. To be clear on what the essence of what that feedback was, I'll repeat it for you again; PNT article is ok, BFN article is not ok. See the original feedback for details. If you're not happy with that then either wait for other Wikipedians to come here naturally or go to WP:DRR/3 and hope they take your side, but I think I've been very fair in my assessment of the two candidate articles. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The sources literally spell out (practically verbatim) that the the audit is not made or done in a way that reflects tradition or faithfully resembles original audit processes.

And there's no Wikipedia policy against accusing editors of lying when they are being deceitful. What you provided was not feedback, it was a complete mischaracterization of sources and WP:POVPUSH. There are however policies on not calling normal discussion "bullying". In fact, @SinglePorpoiseAccount, accusations of misconduct made without evidence are considered a serious personal attack (WP:WikiBullying#False accusations). ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 00:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

If the sources literally spell it out then there should be no problem block quoting them. You're obviously seeing something I'm not seeing in them. But, be careful not to move the goal posts; you said "unauthentic", which it is not since it's done with approval from the Arizona Senate.

As I have already stated, what I provided was detailed feedback on the two sources in question. You've made it clear that you do not agree with me, but stay civil (WP:IUC) and objective. My assessment of the articles aren't attacks on you, there is no reason for you to be offended and/or try to appear threatening. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not moving the goalposts, it seems you don't understand the meaning of unauthentic. It does not mean unofficial. Unauthentic is defined as "not made or done in a way that reflects tradition or faithfully resembles an original." It does not have anything to do with the audit being done by the Arizona Senate. It has everything to do with the way the Arizona Senate has gone about this audit.

Via Snopes: Months after former President Donald Trump's election defeat, legislative Republicans in Arizona are challenging the outcome as they embark on an unprecedented effort to audit the results in the state's most populous county. Unprecedented means "never done or known before", so hopefully you see how that is just another way of saying "not done in a way that reflects tradition". AZ Central reported that professional auditors say It’s not an "audit. It doesn’t meet the formal criteria. Obviously they're not asserting it was unofficial. They're making a statement about the operations of the audit not faithfully resembling original audit processes. Which is even more clear when you read the sources in full. However I will not be going through and picking out all the other ways sources call the audit unauthentic, as that will take too long, and I'm certain experienced editors would come to my same conclusion about the sources. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 02:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

So I just discovered you inserted the reference anyway, I have removed it now and if you reinsert it again I feel the need to notify an admin to take precautions to prevent you from starting WP:EW. This isn't a threat, but you need to respect the Wikipedia guidelines. See WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS.

Unprecedented doesn't imply it's done without respect to tradition. You can have firefighters fighting an unprecedented fire, but that doesn't mean they won't use water to put it out. In the AZ Central article they also say this:

At least one auditor by trade believes strongly this is an audit — he also happens to be helping run it. Randy Pullen, a former state GOP chairman who is helping the Senate on audit-related communications, is a certified public accountant and a former partner at Deloitte, the national audit and accounting firm. He said that the Senate's contractors are following strict procedures, as auditors do, and collecting detailed evidence that could be used in court. He disagrees that the contractors, as a whole, are biased, and said it simply was a mistake to release information early. Whatever you call it, Senate President Karen Fann has said she expects similar efforts to occur elsewhere, too. She told the Senate's lead contractor at a recent hearing that the procedures being used here could serve as the "groundwork" for postelection reviews across the country.

So basically, it ends up being yet another case of WP:THISORTHAT. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 05:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@SinglePorpoiseAccount: That auditor is not an independent source and therefore not a reliable source. He is actively involved in helping to run the audit. If that's not a WP:COISOURCE, I don't know what is. You can't even call it a WP:FRINGE theory, because it's completely biased. You should restore the reference. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 05:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, those are all good points, but the problem is that much of the same arguments apply to BFN as well. As I previously pointed out, BFN has a heavy left bias according to bias investigating source AllSides.[8] This seems to be consistent with the bias I saw in the article, and these are a big part of what I'm basing issues with WP:IMPARTIAL on. Since they assert the audit has a right bias then the left bias of BFN itself becomes problematic. That matches fairly closely with your WP:RS argument above, although formally I guess it goes mostly under WP:UNDUE. WP:FRINGE may not apply to BFN in a strict sense, but I don't see many more outlets taking it to such extremes in trying to prove the audit is "pro-Trump". It makes claims that the accountants are "pro-Trump figurines" and other conspiracy theories.

Therefore I stand by my removal of the reference. The way I see it, it clearly does not comply with several of Wikipedias rules and guidelines. Even if it didn't have those issues it would still need to be an archived link since I can easily prove the article has been edited since you requested comments on it. For convenience, here it is again.[9]

The other article from Phoenix New Times[10] still has the ok from me and seems to support the claim in the Wikipedia article just fine. Correct me if I'm wrong but earlier in the thread you seemed to agree that it did. If you do not want to use the PNT article anymore, please explain why? SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

How is the Buzzfeed article any different at all from all the other sources used in this article that say the exact same thing about the audit? ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 22:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

If there is a specific dispute about the propriety of a given source, I would suggest raising the issue at WP:RSN, for a definitive determination. BD2412 T 23:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@BD2412: Good idea. WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#BuzzFeed News source on 2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 03:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@SinglePorpoiseAccount: where are you getting that the audit has “ members from both parties”. I have never seen a source say that it does. SecretName101 (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Well for starters it's required by the election procedures manual of the state of Arizona, as mentioned at 03:32:04 in the archived video from the July 15th hearing.[11][12] A bipartisan workforce is also implied right there in their presentation video they showed in the July 15th hearing. Presentation video begins at about 03:08:30 in the archived video and the statements from Kim Carpenter is at 03:09:40 and 03:15:43, sadly that part is not in the transcription linked in the Wikipedia article as the transcript begins a bit later (source video for the transcript lacks the opening statements). I have not seen any concrete evidence to the contrary, just speculative blanket statements that the audit as a whole is "Republican". SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@SinglePorpoiseAccount: looked at that clip of July 15. Ken Bennett, even in those comments, did not explicitly say they were following what he was citing. And also, he included the caveat that it needed to be witnessed by reps of both part “if possible”. SecretName101 (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Please indent your replies with ":" characters, it makes the thread easier to follow. You're right, he did not state it as explicitly as I remembered. However I think a good faith interpretation of what Ken Bennett said, given the context, is that they're following the election procedures manual of the state of Arizona. The same goes for the statements by Kim Carpenter. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@SinglePorpoiseAccount: Bennett has evaded questions as to whether bipartisan observation is being properly allowed “During the confrontational hour-long press briefing, Logan and Bennett couldn’t say whether the three-person teams that will hand count the nearly 2.1 million ballots will each have at least one Democrat and one Republican.” https://coloradonewsline.com/briefs/experts-raise-concerns-about-processes-transparency-as-arizona-election-audit-begins/

“Bennett said volunteer observers had also been recruited to monitor the process. He said he had hoped they would be bipartisan, but he acknowledged that as of last week, about 70 percent of those who offered to assist were Republicans.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/arizona-recount-trump-fraud-claims/2021/04/23/2f320b72-a3a4-11eb-a774-7b47ceb36ee8_story.html SecretName101 (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Those articles seem to be from an earlier stage of the audit in April. It wouldn't surprise me if they couldn't commit to an answer on whether or not they would have bipartisan attendance in every instance of the count, because they simply didn't know at that point. They also knew that if they did commit to an answer then it would be under intense scrutiny throughout the process (and rightly so). Still, 70% isn't that bad considering the image being portrayed in the media. I also can't find any mirror of that press briefing accessible from the EU, if you find one could you please link it here? SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@SinglePorpoiseAccount: To state the obvious, what state law requires is irrelevant to us as editors. The fact that state law requires it doesn't mean it's what has, is or will happen. We need sources which actually say it is, has or will happen for this particular audit rather than say it happened because we assume it must because state law requires it. After all, isn't a big part of the reasoning behind this audit because one group alleges state (or federal or county or whatever) law was not properly followed? What the auditors say they are doing is a bit better, still for something like this we really should be using using reliable secondary sources coverage rather than press releases or press conferences. Also even if we were to use primary sources, we could only rely on what they actually said, not out own interpretations of what they said guided by state law (or whatever). If stuff has changed from April, that perfectly understandable but we need sources to demonstrate it has, we can't just assume it has because we hope it has or feel it should have. Nil Einne (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not quite following, what do you mean by "what state law requires is irrelevant to us as editors"? Anyway, I think we need a healthy mix of both primary and secondary sources for this Wikipedia article. Secondary sources on this topic tend to use what I consider "optimistically abridged" quotes from officials, sometimes even paraphrasing carefully worded statements. I can see if I can find if there's been any information released on the bipartisan split among the auditors since April, if that's what you're asking? SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I mean it's irrelevant to any changes we make to the article. We cannot assume because state law requires it, it has, will or is happening. Therefore your suggestion that the fact state law requires it supports the claim 'the audit has “ members from both parties”' is incorrect. If we want to say in the article the audit has members from both parties, we need secondary sources which say it has. Not editors deciding it must have because state law requires it, which putting aside that's not how WP:Verifiability works, is a poor assumption anyway for the reasons I outlined. Also, we cannot use our own interpretations of primary sources to dispute secondary sources. That's a big no-no. Frankly I'm very confused what this discussion is even about. It looks like it started off as a discussion about a comment made on this talk page rather than a dispute what to include in the article. If that's the case why are we still talking about it? Let's just drop it, editors are free to think whatever they want about the audit having members of both parties, enough energy has been spent on something which doesn't relate to improving the article. (Yes I appreciate the sub-thread was dead for 2 days before I revived it but I didn't look at the earlier comments at the time and just assumed this related to a dispute over something in the article and it seems we're still talking about.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

To be fair I haven't really seen much numerical evidence to support either conclusion, just quoted statements from auditors and their critics. Closest is probably the article SecretName101 linked, where Ken Bennet suggested about 70 percent of the volunteering staff as a whole were Republican.[13] I would agree we should just drop it and not say anything about whether the audit is bipartisan or Republican, but others keep bringing it up. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Frankly I'm very confused what this discussion is even about. I increasingly sense the deployment of chaff and shiny objects to confuse and disrupt. soibangla (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

News from today (8/2) - Are we keeping up with events?

The Board of Supervisors and Dominion refused in writing again to comply with the AZ Senate subpoenas. Following an emergency Board meeting on Monday, Chairman Jack Sellers asked for a release of info already obtained in the audit and warning the Senate of legal action in response.[14] 73.120.83.182 (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

We don't "keep up" with events here, per WP:NOTNEWS. Our concern is with writing an article that will be of use in the long term, not immediately. We have a sister project, WikiNews, which serves as a current events news source. On Wikipedia, there is no WP:DEADLINE, and it may take years for everything to get into the article that is going to end up being there. We are also, of course, concerned with WP:RECENTISM, and avoid rushing to include things in the short term that may prove to be inconsequential in the long term. As an encyclopedic topic, a ballot audit occurring in 2021 is of no more immediate significance than one that occurred in 1821. BD2412 T 03:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Threats of legal action from the Maricopa Board of Supervisors against the AZ Senate seems a fairly significant development. 73.120.83.182 (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Is the Maricopa Board of Supervisors threatening to take legal action? Or is it merely suggesting that some form of legal action is likely to ensue? BD2412 T 04:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Read the letter. It's broadly disseminated. 73.120.83.182 (talk) 11:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

If we have to read a letter with has been broadly disseminated, then this seems to be WP:UNDUE. For something like this, if it's not widely covered in reliable secondary sources, we can be sure it's not significant. Nil Einne (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

According to AZ Central[15], this is what happened:

• On July 26th, Republican Senate leaders issued subpoenas to both Maricopa County supervisors and Dominion Voting Systems. The subpoenas demanded the following information:[16]

• Information about data breaches to the county's election systems.
• Ballot envelopes with voter signatures, or images of the envelopes.
• Information about changes to the county's voter records.
• Routers and network data, some of which the senators had requested in original subpoenas to the county this past winter.
• Usernames, passwords, tokens and pins to the vote-counting machines the county rents from Dominion, including all that would provide administrative access. This was also a repeat from the original subpoenas.

• The requested information was to be presented by 1 p.m. Monday at the state Capitol
• Attorneys representing county officials and Dominion instead sent (joint? article unclear on this) letters to President Karen Fann and the Senate, outlining they will not comply due to security concerns, and that they had provided what they were legally obliged to provide.
• President Karen Fann released a statement saying this will further delay the results.
• AZ supervisory board Chairman Jack Sellers released a statement saying if they "haven't figured out that the election in Maricopa County was free, fair and accurate yet, I'm not sure you ever will." and "The board has real work to do and little time to entertain this adventure in never-never land,"
• There might be a vote to hold the parties outlined in the subpoenas for contempt, but a previous vote in February of 2021 on preceding subpoenas have found the subpoenas were valid but ruled not to hold the parties in contempt.
• Supervisor Bill Gates (no apparent relation to former Microsoft founder sharing the same name) said the subpoenas are not a "serious" request, and called it "political theater." . He also pointed out the tabulating machines the subpoenas requested usernames and passwords for were returned on July 29th. (ed. note: According to statements during the July 15th hearing the auditors have forensic images of the hard drives from the tabulators.)
• Civil division chief for the County Attorney's Office, Thomas Liddy, wrote "Specifically, providing these routers puts sensitive, confidential data belonging to Maricopa County citizens — including Social Security numbers and protected health information — at risk. Further, the Maricopa County Sheriff has explained that the production of the routers would render MCSO internal law enforcement communication infrastructure extremely vulnerable to hackers,”
• Together with the subpoenas the Senate also sent out record requests for the same materials requested in the subpoenas. The county has responded they will comply with those as required by law. (ed. note: Unclear to me what the difference is and why they are fighting the subpoenas but not the record requests? I'm putting this in the bullet points anyway, maybe someone else can figure this out.)
• Record requests were sent on a security breach in November of 2020, the supervisors replied they will provide the information but not in time for the Monday deadline.
• County officials say they will provide images of or physical originals of ballot envelopes in response to the record requests.
• Quoted from the article: Recorder Stephen Richer said he will work with senators to provide what they want from the database.
• The article ends with a general summary of the previous subpoenas, before the subpoenas in question were sent out.

I've got to admit there's a lot to keep track of here. The gist of the story does indeed seem to be both Maricopa County supervisors and Dominion Voting Systems refusing to comply with legal subpoenas, and that they might face consequences as a result. Several other news outlets are starting to pick up the story too, so I think it's sufficiently significant for inclusion in the article if someone can boil down the bullet points above to an easily understandable paragraph. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

As editors have pointed out above, Wikipedia is concerned with Not News, that there is no WP:DEADLINE, and concerned with not engaging in WP:RECENTISM. The Wall of Text above contradicts Not a forum and needs to be hatted. This is engaging in disruptive behavior and may actually be an end around to post this information, somehow, on Wikipedia. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I only tried to extract the facts and statements from the article so that someone more experienced could make a better summary than my last few sentences. Sorry if that came off as disruptive. Feel free to remove the bullet points, but please keep the paragraph below them and the source reference at the top. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with User:Steve Quinn. The excessive detail above has zero business in this pagespace and the discussion here and on RSN makes it plain that User:SinglePorpoiseAccount has much to learn about Wikipedia. BusterD (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Last sentence of the lead

The final sentence of the lead states that "many commentators and Republicans characterized the effort as a sham." This sentence is very weird; why are Republicans mentioned specifically but Democrats aren't, especially since Democrats have been far more critical of the audit than Republicans? Why not just say "many commentators characterized the effort as a sham," or even "many commentators and politicians characterized the effort as a sham"? I would just make this change myself, but the sentence is so incredibly odd that it must have been intentional, so I want to make sure that this hasn't already been discussed. Mlb96 (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I added that because it is notable that many members of the same party oppose the audit, some vociferously, including the Republican-majority board of supervisors and county Recorder Richer. It wouldn't be notable if Democrats opposed it. soibangla (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Republicans calling it a sham is more notable (as can be seen from the fact that many sources for that statement highlight that fact specifically), presumably since it was initiated by by Arizona Senate Republicans. Without that statement many people would likely assume that Republican politicians broadly or even uniformly support the audit, which is not the case. It is a dog-bites-man vs. man-bites-dog sort of thing; it is less notable that Democrats oppose a Republican-led initiative. --Aquillion (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the analogy is more like man-eating lettuce versus man eating lettuce, but to each his own. BD2412 T 01:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • But by mentioning that many Republicans criticized the audit without mentioning Democrats, it implies that Democrats are not criticizing the audit. And by specifying the two groups of criticizers as "commentators and Republicans," it implies that "commentators" and "Republicans" are mutually exclusive categories, which they obviously are not. It's not about what's more notable, it's about the sentence just sounding bizarre. Mlb96 (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    • What do you think would be good language to make it clear that the audit has been criticized and characterized as a sham by people from across the political spectrum, and to convey that although it was initiated by Republican office-holders, it has been equally criticized by Republicans in various offices? BD2412 T 02:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I don't see how that sentence in any way implies that democrats do not criticize the audit. If you really think it's an issue, what about changing it to "many commentators, both Republican and Democrat, characterized the effort as a sham." ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 02:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
      • I think that's an improvement, but it implies that all commentators are either Republicans or Democrats. I would say something like ""many commentators, including Republicans and Democrats, characterized the effort as a sham". BD2412 T 04:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
        • Something like "Conspiracy theory issues also arose as many commentators across the political spectrum characterized the effort as a sham..." would sound good and convey what needs to be conveyed imo. Mlb96 (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
          • If we really want to emphasize the fact that Republicans were criticizing the audit, then it could also be "Conspiracy theory issues also arose as many commentators across the political spectrum, including Republicans, characterized the effort as a sham..." Mlb96 (talk) 04:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
            • I think that's the one. Everyone agree? ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 07:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
            • I would go with the previous one ("Conspiracy theory issues also arose as many commentators across the political spectrum characterized the effort as a sham...") or add more explicit context as to why Republicans are mentioned specifically, even though it should be obvious from the first sentence of the article. Maybe "Conspiracy theory issues also arose as many commentators across the political spectrum, including from the initiating Republican party, characterized the effort as a sham..."? SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 10:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

As the discussion appears to have stalled, I've decided to boldly make the change myself. If anyone objects, feel free to revert; I'm going to be away for the weekend. Mlb96 (talk) 06:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

News from last couple of days

BOS failure to comply with the Senate subpoenas referred to AZ Attorney General Brnovich, who gives the BOS until August 20 to respond. 73.120.83.182 (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• You may be looking for WikiNews. We are WP:NOTNEWS, and we do not report every trivial matter that occurs in connection with a notable event. BD2412 T 03:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Changes to the Maricopa election page

Moved from User Talk:FormalDude § Changes to the Maricopa election page

 – 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 19:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

On this page you assert that the Maricopa auditors acknowledged that they claimed that they failed to find the election database because they had been looking at it the wrong way. This is simply not true. We are faced here by conflicting assertions. Maricopa County says the database was not deleted. The Cyberninjas say it was, but they managed to recover it. This is the change I made. Yet you say my change was "not constructive"? How is that? I'm trying to correct an error on Wikipedia's part. You wish that error to remain? I know you can't show me any primary -- primary not reportage -- source that says differently, for none such exist. If you know different, give me the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.187.142 (talk)

azmirror.com/2021/05/18/audit-official-says-he-recovered-files-undercutting-claim-county-officials-deleted-them

What aren't you getting? These are conflicting assertions... per WP:NPOV we represent both of them in the article. Additionally, Wikipedia prefers reliable secondary sources over primary sources whenever over possible. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 19:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 August 2021

Three members of the Cyber Ninjas tested positive for COVID-19. It should definitely be added to this article. [17] 2603:6010:D307:98CA:DDEC:3B40:6BF1:68D6 (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

That seems rather trivial, in my opinion. Millions of people are testing positive for COVID-19. BD2412 T 02:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

That would be relevant here though as it's being used as the basis for delaying the report, thus the need to put it in the wikipedia entry

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/arizona-audit-covid/2021/08/23/f3c46c9e-041d-11ec-a654-900a78538242_story.html

 Not done this is not a complete and specific description of the request - please explicitly put what you would type in to the edit box here, along with your reference, and along with directions for exactly where in the article it would go. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I considered adding this in the context of it's being used as the basis for delaying the report but like BD2412 I concluded it is trivial at this point. I suggest we wait to see how things unfold and maybe it will become notable in a broader context, perhaps as an aside. soibangla (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: unprotected

I have fully unprotected the page due to lack of concerning activity around this topic. Of course, it will still bear watching. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Kudos to those who made this such a nice page, well-anchored with RS. Harder to muck with cited work. BusterD (talk) 07:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

What are the stakes?

The article doesn't make clear why this matters so much to Republicans that they would go to such lengths as to hire private firms to count the ballots a third time in a non-transparent way. So what if they get the outcome they want? If Trump had won Arizona, he would get 11 more electoral votes and Biden 11 less, still not enough to win the presidency. I came to this article looking for an explanation of the fuss. Why does it matter? What is at stake? Can something be put in the article to explain this?

The only thing I could find was this Slate article (kind of an editorial) saying that if the audit finds its predetermined outcome that Trump won, that somehow makes it easier for other states to initiate similar shady audits. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Protected Edit Request on 26th August 2021

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge John Hannah has ordered Cyber Ninjas to keep all records of their audit.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/569515-arizona-judge-orders-cyber-ninjas-to-preserve-all-records-in-2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.69.144.40 (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ––FormalDude talk 05:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done, added. @FormalDude: That isn't a request for "change X to Y", it's clearly a request to "add X". It seems reasonable to me. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead tagged

I tagged the lead because the last sentence in it contains information that is not discussed anywhere in the body.

The tag was reverted with the reasoning that it summarizes the "conspiracy issues" section, but it doesn't. Specifically, the sentence mentions "Republicans" and the term "fraudit". The conspiracy issues section mentions only one specific Republican and makes no mention of the word "fraudit". ~Anachronist (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I removed the tag after copying the lead info into the conspiracy section. More work can and should be done in expanding that line and mining those sources, but for now the lead-body issue is solved. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

OK. Yes, this needs to be expanded, definitely. Especially since NINE sources are cited for that line. That was a highlighted feature in news reporting about this, and it deserves more than a trivial mention here. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2021

May I request this gets added to either the "September 2021" section or the "Conspiracy theory issues" section of the article:

On September 24, 2021, Cyber Ninjas CEO Doug Logan confirmed that the hand recount tally were very accurately correlate with the official county numbers ([18]). 2603:6010:D307:98CA:599B:A04:A180:BA53 (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: We don't need an interview to confirm what is already covered in multiple secondary sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Cyber Ninjas then went on to discuss the fraudulent votes that were counted.

35k duplicates votes were counted. 9k more mail-in ballots were received than mailed out.

You can't selectively choose what to include in here.

You're using a single line from a DRAFT source to spew a fake narrative.

Here's the actual hearing, not regurgitated crap from a propaganda "news" outlet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfuvyndpZiU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.242.143.254 (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for linking, that video shows the audit concluded that President Biden did indeed receive more votes there than former President Donald Trump. What you're wanting to include is not relevant considering the audit confirmed the election results. ––FormalDude talk 08:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

73 reliable secondary sources are preferred to help guide our coverage over us deciding our risking misrepresenting what's in primary sources. Nil Einne (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)