Talk:2019 Moscow City Duma election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: Article was split. See talk page of other article: Talk:2019 Moscow protests.

How many signatures are some of the blocked candidates submitting?[edit]

From the article: "Candidates for registration must collect voter signatures in their support in the amount of 3% of all constituency voters (from 4,500 to 5,500 signatures)."

It would be useful to know the numbers of signatures being presented. If a candidate submits 10,000 signatures, then it is pretty obvious that this is a system set up to block candidates. I don't think other countries block candidates based on the percentage of flawed signatures. -- Timeshifter (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, yes, it is purely russian "feature". Most of indipendent candidates collected more than 3% of signatures (for example, Dmitry Gudkov collected about 7500 signatures, while the 3% barrier in his district is 5300). Yet the rules make extra signatures completely useless. They simply have to throw them away. And submitted only those 3% or slightly more. Russian page contains some information about that in table (collected/submitted to the MCEC), however without map of districts it's not quite represetative. With current newbee status I can't transfer this map to Wikistock. [1]. This one (link below).Swarrel (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be completely precise, the rule is the following: the candidate can submit NOT MORE than 110% signatures out of the 3% limit (and most of the indipendents did so). So that, after flawing 10%, he would have less than 3%. Any sighantures over these 110% simply wouldn't be counted.Swarrel (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • And by the way, since when Mayor opinion (Sobyanin) about situation in his city is a "POV" and should be deleted? Other wiki page (Democracy Index) is also a "POV"? Swarrel (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • And 10% flaws was not the only reason for refusal. Yet the most frequent. For example, Tsukasov (district 14, de-facto CPRF, not one of "indipendents") got a refusal because he indicated a "----" intead of "don't have" in the colunm "foreign property". And so on...Swarrel (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:Msk2014.%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B0.svg

More on how the mobile connection was blocked[edit]

Those with more time than me may want to incorporate this reference, and some info from the article:

For example; from the article:

"Colleagues," the letter says, "in the Presnensky and Basmanny districts and in the center of Moscow, a number of base stations are disabled at the request of law enforcement agencies."

The letter added that this information was not to be publicly disclosed, there would be a subterfuge instead.

-- Timeshifter (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made a short mention: [1]--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Russian sources do not pay much attention to such things, even those who could be called "opposition-minded". Blocked mobile connection, cut wires from speakers and microphones, increased metro train intervals before the rally, slow pace of people skipping, inconvenient entry-exit routes, pistols that police officers keep in front of the rally participants, although this is not required by law in a peaceful rally, and so on ... a million little things that everyone has put up with, and therefore no one writes about, although they are not legal. That's why such things usually not written in the wiki, although in reality they exist.Swarrel (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest including a lot of that info in a section called "Government interference in protests" or something like that.-- Timeshifter (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But does it worth to do without sufficient sources? I found only twitter-sources at the moment. Given that even notes that “signs of aggression, such as overturned cars or broken windows, were not provided,” were eventually deleted.Swarrel (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are definitely needed. -- Timeshifter (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The police used sound-jamming buses on the August 10 rally. Bus on the rally pictured here. After the August 10 rally I saw accidentally one of these buses, but the policeman didn't allow to take a close photo. Yet it definitely contains some sophisticated electronics inside. Just live it here until more sources are found.Swarrel (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another Aug 10, 2019 Moscow protests reference[edit]

OVD-Info, a monitoring body, said 245 people were arrested at Saturday's demonstration in Moscow and 80 in St Petersburg. A small number of other arrests took place in other cities, including Rostov-on-Don and Bryansk.

-- Timeshifter (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GAFAM vs the Fediverse info?[edit]

Are there RS's documenting whether the protestors are using the decentralised, user-controlled privacy-respecting online social networks - the Fediverse [with Mastodon (software), Diaspora (social network), PeerTube for videos, and so on software and servers] - as a safer alternative to GAFAM during these election protests? Even though GAFAM (and Twitter, although it's not strictly GAFAM) are mainly US-owned, their lack of security and centralised nature makes them risky for long-term sustainable human rights organising, so I would guess that a lot of the protestors are using the Fediverse. But I'm just speculating - I don't have sources... Boud (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would give 99.9% that none of these apps were used. Mobile connection in centre of Moscow is blocked during the rallies. Besides, if such networks were used by protestors, they would be already banned by Roskomnadzor. Main source about rallies is Twitter, and mostly AFTER the rally is over.Swarrel (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any references for any of this? It would be interesting and significant info for the article. -- Timeshifter (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reference you provided above states that during July 27 and Aug 3 mobile connection was blocked in the areas of protest (boulevard ring and the city hall = center). The primary source (BBC) here: https://www.bbc.com/russian/features-49255791Swarrel (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By "during", I mainly meant from home/friends' house before/after the protests, in the wide sense that protests are not just the physical events, they include the discussions of tactics and strategies, arguments for/against, coordination and so on, before the events, and solidarity afterwards. Unless people have genuine free-software smartphones such as the apparently-soon-to-be-released Librem 5 or PinePhone or a rooted smartphone with one of the more secure versions of an Android variant installed, then you might as well assume that your smartphone is compromised in terms of security and privacy. I'm not an expert in Fediverse software packages, but most of these can be run over https in a browser on a laptop or desktop computer. Looking at Roskomnadzor and List_of_websites_blocked_in_Russia, I see that using the Fediverse could become a cat-and-mouse game in Russia. If someone creates a new Fediverse server (should be quite easy for a typical geek), then until Roskomnadzor is aware that the server is interconnecting to the wider Fediverse, it won't be blocked.
In any case, my speculation is not so useful; having specific references would be useful. If Mastodon, Diaspora and so on developers know that a censorship-proof version is needed, then they're more likely to add features that could help for that (e.g. all communication passes over https/port 443 - I don't know about all the protocols and ports used, guidelines for security-conscious users advising them to use only the more private levels of communication, to avoid revealing the service that's running on the server). This could go both ways, however: if authorities know that the Fediverse is being used, then ways to detect it will be developed too, though that might not be easy given the variety of software and software forks. But since Twitter is apparently not blocked (much?), chances are the Fediverse is not (yet) blocked. Anyway, the point here is that sourced info would be interesting. Boud (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Twitter/Instagram will never be blocked due to one simple reason - officials' children like it very much. If not Twitter/Instagram, where they will show their luxury way of life? Concerning protected networks, I didn't find any information in reliable sources about that. At the moment protest movement is peaceful and decentralised, besides, all possible leaders are currently impriosoned and can't lead the protest. Swarrel (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for mesh networking over bluetooth?[edit]

Maybe this explains the comments about apps, which was not my original question, but now it is. :) There are now lots of sources for Bridgefy being heavily used in the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests and FireChat being used earlier in the 2014 Hong Kong protests, the 2015 Ecuadorian protests and the 2015 Free Way to the Catalan Republic protests. Bridgefy seems to be non-free (software licencing) and an unsourced comment at FireChat says that FireChat is a non-free fork of riot.im (which is free-licensed with a permissive licence, which means that forks may legally be non-free).

So these are all independent of the Internet, if I understand correctly. If the smartphones have enough battery power, then among themselves (or maybe with extra emitters placed in/on shops, homes, balconies, trees, wherever - an unsourced comment on my talk page seems to claim that the smartphones alone would not be able to make a viable network), they have a mesh network over Bluetooth which is robust against police censorship.

Do we have RS's for any of these being used at the Moscow Duma election protests? Boud (talk) 01:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fact-checking government propaganda[edit]

-- Timeshifter (talk) 05:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Is "poligraph.info" considered as a RS in en.wiki? Not only in this case, but in advance as well.Swarrel (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I don't see why not considering its description here: Polygraph.info.
I don't see it listed negatively here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. -- Timeshifter (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crowd sizes[edit]

The overhead Moscow crowd photos in the article can be mentioned here on Wikipedia.

Also, since you speak Russian please contact the photographers and ask them to upload their overhead photos to here:

-- Timeshifter (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not Kara-Murza's photo. Many twitter sources published it, so I'm not sure about the copiright thing. It's originally made by Ilya Varlamov, the original source is here. Maybe external picture from his cite? Swarrel (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
https://tlg.name/varlamov_news is at the bottom of the photos. Ask them to put the photos under a CC-BY license. That way they get credit, and it can be used on Wikipedia.
Maybe create a table of estimated crowd sizes by date. See Help:Sorting#Numerical ranges. Then reference various articles such as the ones linked above and below.
Sources for more articles:
Google: 2019 Moscow election protests.
Google image search: 2019 Moscow election protests.
Google News: 2019 Moscow election protests.
-- Timeshifter (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting-off the protest section as a separate article?[edit]

It seems that the protests/political crisis portion needs to be split-off as a separate article, e.g. something like 2019 Russia protests. The protests have become quite a significant story in their own right, and the info about them overwhelms the City Duma elections article. So, if somebody has time to perform such a split-off, I think this needs to be done. Nsk92 (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The corresponding article was split, yet is was a bad idea. There is no consensus about the name of second article (protests or crisis). Comments on the name of the article are twice longer then the article already. Protests is only one side of the conflict, there is also an evident delegitimization of the whole election process (the MCEC registered unpopular candidates and didn't register popular, thus making visible that it works upside down - see table and the beginning of the article) and elements of external management by Presidential Administration in Moscow. I think, that it would be better to wait with splitting until a consesus would be found in the corresponding article.Swarrel (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Most of the news reports in the English language media cover these events as 'protests'. I can see by google searching that something like 'Russia protests' is a popular search term now. However, google displays the search results with the link to the 2017–2018 Russian protests article on the right. I don't think that, by comparison, too many people are trying to seach under '2019 Moscow City Duma election'. The result is that a lot fewer people are finding this Wikipedia article. Nsk92 (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, I created a redirect, 2019 Russia protests, pointing to this article. Hopefully it'll make it easier for interested readers to find it. Nsk92 (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, they mostlty call it protests, yet they write about the visible sight. If it improves the page search, it's a good move. I guess, it could be splitted, and later renamed after Russian article, if needed. Swarrel (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly favor a split so I've posted a "split" template to notify readers of the discussion. Charles Essie (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see your "split" template. --46.242.12.78 (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also strongly favor splitting this off into its own article. This article shouldn't be politicized; any politicization should take place in a 'protest-related' article. User:Prefer not to say 02:18, 04 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.83.18.154 (talk) [reply]
I also supporting splitting information on 2019 protests into a separate article. There should be a short section on the protests, briefly describing the reason (government claims "not enough signatures/fake signatures", opposition claims "a false pretext to block real opposition"), with a link to the separate article at the top of the section. --46.242.12.78 (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am leaning against a split. Because there would be one short article (like 2014 Moscow City Duma election), and one long article about protests, politics, constitutional crises, corruption, etc.. Just titling the 2nd article could be a time-wasting nightmare. Better to spend that time creating a better article. Splits are needed when there are 2 long articles that could be created. So this split does not make sense for size reasons. We would only be splitting off a few paragraphs from the protest/politics/arrests/crises/corruption/etc article. -- Timeshifter (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Splitted the article. Concerning the length of the "elections" article - it would be longer, I'll work on it. Unlike 2014 case, a lot of things to mention: FBK investigations works for both protests and elections, tries to steal the elections (some cases succesful), the loud defeat of the leader of the United Russia faction Metelsky, and so on. Swarrel (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Looks good. The elections article is long enough to be split off. -- Timeshifter (talk) 06:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Riot officer filmed punching woman in stomach has caused outrage in Russia[edit]

The clip has been viewed more than four million times on social media and has caused outrage in Russia. It will now be examined by the country's Investigative Committee -- the main federal investigative body in the country -- Sosnovskaya's lawyer told Russian state news agency TASS after filing a grievance.

-- Timeshifter (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition voting strategy, “Smart Vote” project[edit]

And this isn’t just about Moscow: we’re doing all this for 27 regional elections on Voting Day [September 8]. ... To beat United Russia, we need to get through to about three percent of voters. There are 7.5 million of them registered in Moscow, so 3.5 percent is roughly 225,000 to 250,000 people. We’ll round that up to 300,000, to be safe.

-- Timeshifter (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unfortunately, opposition figures divided in their opinion on participation in the elections. Navalny offers "smart vote", Khodorkovsky thinks that only a [small] part of the parlamentary opposition deserves support, and in constituencies where is no worthy candidates (that is, those who supported the access to the elections of the independents somehow) the ballot should be spoiled, some others call to boycot the elections. I'll a make a note about that with the list of supported, but closer to the date of elections due to real life issues and due to the fact the supported by opposition candidates could be excluded from the elections (what already happened at least 3 times: Tsukasov, Abushaev (see 1st table) and Kholmogorov in 45th constituency, excluded a few hours after Yashin make a post in his support). Swarrel (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do map colors represent?[edit]

What do the map colors on this map represent?:

Moscow constituencies

-- Timeshifter (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Different constituencues have different colors, that's the only point. The "gerrymandering salamanders" are so ugly, that it is difficult to distinguish the borders without colors (ex. const 9, 11, 31, 38, etc.). White lines are the actual borders between raions. Blue lines are borders between constituencies. In most of cases, constituencies contain parts of raions, splitting raions between different constituencies (ex 33-34, 3-5, 26-27, 22-25 etc.). Swarrel (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2019_Moscow_City_Duma_election&oldid=1196835552"