Talk:2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit/Archive 8

Findings are currently misleading
I cant help but notice the rebuttals to the findings are not cited very well. Many of the citations are low quality.

The digital forensics should be included. They allege direct violation of law and are being pursued by the AG: https://themichiganstar.com/2021/09/25/maricopa-county-audit-results-reveal-someone-was-caught-on-video-illegally-deleting-hundreds-of-thousands-of-election-files-the-day-before-the-audit-started/ https://www.azag.gov/press-release/attorney-general-mark-brnovich-issues-statement-regarding-arizona-senates-draft

All pages reference volume 3 of the report, and none are mentioned in the Wiki: https://media.kjzz.org/s3fs-public/20210919_-_Maricopa_County_Forensic_Audit_-_Volume_III_-_Results_Details_003.pdf

Four instances of reccomending action be taken by attorney general: pages 5, 9, 21, 23, 28


 * Page 60 - The Election Management System (EMS) database which holds all details associated with the 2020 General Election was purged and all the election results were cleared by a Results Tally and Reporting Admin on February 2 at 5:14 pm; the evening before the Pro V & V audit was scheduled to officially start.
 * Page 62 - Before the election (10/28/20 08:52:36AM and 11/05/20 05:58:58PM) 865 directories and 85,673 election related files (scanned ballots, .dvd files, slog.txt files, etc.) were deleted from the EMS C:\ drive
 * Page 63 - Around the election (Between 11/01/20 10:37:41AM and 03/16/21 10:17:06AM) 9,571 directories and 1,064,746 election related files were deleted from the D drive
 * page 64 - a user hipradmin01 deleted 59,387 files  between 03/03/21 12:53:34PM and 03/03/21 01:37:49PM
 * page 65 - a user hipradmin03 deleted 196,463 files  between 03/03/21 12:53:34PM and 03/03/21 01:37:49PM
 * Page 66 - 263,139 ballot images  scanned on or after November 1, 2020 on the election system that are corrupt and unreadable, while No corruption of ballot images occurred in the 1,347,240 ballots processed on the same nine high-speed scanners prior to November 1, 2020
 * Page 69 - . 21,273 ballot images are entirely missing from the forensics images of the election equipment
 * Page 82 - Video footage of a user user utilizing the emsadmin account remotely logged into the EMS server at 3/3/2021 11:12:31 AM and began executing a script at 3/3/2021 11:13:44 AM that checked accounts passwords. The event logs record this connection as originating from a system with the IPV6 address of e80::ec82:cdfd, which is a valid IPV6 local network address. Between 3/3/2021 11:12:31 AM and 3/5/2021 7:58:04 AM this user ran the script 37,686 times

Deeply concnerned person (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * FYI, from what I can tell, The Michigan Star website cited above is part of the same network as The Tennessee Star and other related sites, described as "a conservative news and commentary website", seems relatively unknown, and overall doesn't seem like a neutral or reliable source. Rjmail (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, you dont need that website, you can use the AG website and the audit report as the source if you'd like. Deeply concnerned person (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, we can't use those primary sources. Maybe after secondary sources can pore over the lengthy report they'll provide more reporting we can use. Most of the reporting thus far has been about what the auditors said during their presentation. The AG's statement did not specifically identify what if anything he will pursue. soibangla (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, even if wikipedia isnt allowed to talk about primary sources and needs a paid employee of a global conglomerate to digest it for them and let them know what they can post on here, at least this lonely post hidden in the talk section provides excepts from the primary source. I guess ill just leave this alone for other people to look at as the fact checkers give use their version of the truth Deeply concnerned person (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * An alternative is to provide the full report under "External links" so users can read it for themselves. I've found volume 3 of the report, which contains their detailed findings, as well as volume 1, but I'm still looking for volume 2. I'll add the whole thing if I find it. soibangla (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks the the info, friend. Im new here. I got you btw, heres all three: https://media.kjzz.org/s3fs-public/20210919_-_Maricopa_County_Forensic_Audit_-_Volume_I_-_Executive_Summary.pdf https://media.kjzz.org/s3fs-public/20210830_-_Maricopa_County_Forensic_Audit_-_Volume_II_-_Methodology_and_Operations.pdf https://media.kjzz.org/s3fs-public/20210919_-_Maricopa_County_Forensic_Audit_-_Volume_III_-_Results_Details_003.pdf Deeply concnerned person (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Putting these in "External links" is fine. That is a good place for linking primary sources of questionable reliability (Maricopa county officials have said that the report is riddled with errors). For this article, we need reliable sources that are about these documents. There is already an extensive "Findings" section in this article that discusses the claims made in the documents you linked. You are welcome to suggest additions or changes to that section. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * How are your comments relevant? Other sources that are in the published article are wholly manufactured by Democratic party organizations.  Wouldn't it be fair to include all points of view, from all sides of the conversation?  Perhaps it is better just to ban wikipedia.org altogether, since it is engaging in one-sided pronouncements of all thing's politics. Samofvt (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Arizona statute § 41-1153
Information regarding the above law seems to continually be added and removed. The reasoning I see being used for its removal is for citing unreliable sources. I don't have experience adding sources, but I was able to find a link directly to the Arizona State legislature's website showing this exact info (https://www.azleg.gov/ars/41/01153.htm). I can't imagine how the Arizona Legislature's website could be considered unreliable. If I'm incorrect please educate me, and further the discussion. UncleToaster (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Statutes_as_sources


 * soibangla (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Moreover, there are hundreds of statutes in the Arizona Statutes. There are statutes regulating the sale of gasoline in the state, statutes setting the penalties for trespassing, statutes describing how the state flag is supposed to be maintained. If our entire goal was to accurately state the wording of statutes, we could include all of these in this article. However, we would need a secondary source to explain why a given statute was applicable to the subject of this article. We can't just say, for example, that some aspect of the audit sounds (to us) like election fraud and then quote the election fraud statute. We would need a source independent of everything going on to make that connection, and then we would cite that source. BD2412  T 22:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for the explanation. So its not that it's unreliable, but that's it's a primary source which isn't appropriate to make inferences from. As well as the inclusion of it in the context that it was added could infer that this law was broken. However, would it not be fair to do something similar to amending the following sentence under the August 2021 section to read: 'Attorney General Mark Brnovich stated that the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors violated state law by not complying with election audit subpoena, which under Arizona State Law may have by resolution had him committed for contempt'? Obviously this may not be the best way to word it, and I pose this as a question still to understand if it would be appropriate to add as I'm clearly not the most experienced wiki editor. Thanks again for the explanation UncleToaster (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Your best bet would be to find a source that says something to that effect. Another reason that we rely on secondary sources is that they determine what is noteworthy for inclusion in an article. BD2412  T 02:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a bit complicated because:
 * And they later negotiated a settlement, as our article says:
 * So this evidently resolved the matter, but we'll see if Brnovich ultimately chooses to litigate. The subpoena was sloppy: asked for things auditors already had, asked for things nobody had, asked the wrong people for things, and asked for routers which they had no need for and which would cost the county as much as $6 million to replace, after they spent $2.8 million to replace the tabulators, and the sheriff said handing over the routers could compromise the whole county. There was no way the county would allow that, and it's hard to see how any reasonable prosecutor would blame them, so they settled rather than lose sales tax revenues. BTW, our article includes "Attorney General Mark Brnovich stated that the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors violated state law by not complying with election audit subpoena," but that doesn't mean anyone should go to jail, as some are quick to insist. Is this why four(?) editors insist the statute be included? I think it's time to move on. soibangla (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The OP gives you a link to the law. If you cannot read that law and draw the same conclusion as the OP, then either 1) you are politically biased, or 2) you are incompetent and should not have any more influence on postings in wikipedia.org.  Thank you. Samofvt (talk) 02:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * or 3), I know how Wikipedia works, as opposed to, say...Facebook. soibangla (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The OP gives you a link to the law. If you cannot read that law and draw the same conclusion as the OP, then either 1) you are politically biased, or 2) you are incompetent and should not have any more influence on postings in wikipedia.org.  Thank you. Samofvt (talk) 02:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * or 3), I know how Wikipedia works, as opposed to, say...Facebook. soibangla (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect/False information
Hello, I am writing this to inform you that the sources you used in determining your answers were false and unreliable sources. The Maricopa County audit team discussed in full, all the issues and irregularities that they found in the course of about 3 hours. No where did they mention that Biden gained 360 votes. This is completely false information from CNN and the New York Times. The reason why those two sources are unreliable is because they did not actually refer to the actual audit report themselves, CNN just baselessly claimed that Biden gained 360 votes, yet they did not show any clip from the actual audit of anyone on the audit team saying this. This is false information and in order to keep the integrity of correct information on Wikipedia, I recommend you either take this article down or revise it with more trustworthy sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.126.185.189 (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * It's in the final Cyber Ninjas final report in Presentation 1, Slide 19. Firefangledfeathers 04:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that the Cyber Ninjas final report somehow changed the results of a CERTIFIED election? I believe you are claiming something that could not be true: Did the Arizona Legislature even take a vote to change the results?  No, I think they did not take a vote to endorse a change in the vote count.  The vote count remains as it was CERTIFIED.  I respectfully request that you please remove your baseless claim that the vote count changed. Samofvt (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course they didn't say it. soibangla (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I know you're joking, but Cyber Ninjas CEO Doug Logan does in fact say those results out loud during the Arizona Senate hearing: (timestamp takes you to the relevant moment). Firefangledfeathers 05:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe the proper way to say this is that Cyber Nijas found a net total of 360 additional votes that should have been counted for Biden. The certified result doesn't change, and the additional votes would make no difference to the outcome. BD2412  T 03:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * OP of "Incorrect/False information": You are absolutely correct. Perhaps the best course of action is to ban wikipedia.org altogether.  Increasingly, the political coverage is extremely (and I use that word lightly) bias in favor of one political parties' agenda to discredit everything that opposes their point of view. Samofvt (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The OP is incorrect: https://i.imgur.com/jmWLU7a.png. And no, the Ninjas report was not used to change the official count, nor did anyone suggest it was. soibangla (talk) 10:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)