User talk:Safrolic

Non-admin closure of RM
Please reopen Talk:Patrick Moore (environmentalist).

I respect that you have worked very hard on the close, but there are several problems with it. The most serious is just that this was not a suitable discussion for non-admin closure. Andrewa (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey there! As I said when closing that discussion, there was a consensus among the votes that (environmentalist) was not a proper disambiguator. I won't reopen it, but I encourage you to begin a new move request immediately at the new location. If you think you can find a consensus to move the page somewhere else, or back to the original location, I support that. Safrolic (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read the close. But that doesn't address the issue I raised at all. Andrewa (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You've only raised the issue that I'm not an admin. I followed the guidelines at WP:RMCI, doing my best to weigh the different arguments, find a consensus, and adhere to the spirit and intent of the policies therein. With regard to WP:RMNAC criteria, there was clear consensus that environmentalist was not appropriate. It was also clear there was no consensus for what *was* the best title. I took reassurance from the line which said, "Some editors do not approve of non-admins closing contentious debates; indeed, elsewhere on Wikipedia, NACs are not recommended, but NACs are not discouraged for requested moves." With the reading I've been doing in the couple days since, I think you're probably right that I'm not as experienced as I thought I was, but I don't think the close I came to was not the best outcome that could be had. Did I weigh the different arguments improperly, or reach the wrong conclusion? I will note that I did see your argument that not disambiguating him as an environmentalist was pushing the POV that he is not one. Safrolic (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd go further than that... !votes of the form I don't think he is an environmentalist should have been discarded quite quickly, and that's a significant number of them. !votes of the form I don't think he ever was an environmentalist not quite so quickly but still discarded. !votes of the form secondary sources say he never was significant as an environmentalist would soon be the only ones left, there are a few of these but do they give evidence? Not that I can see. What little evidence is presented is primary evidence giving the Greenpeace POV. But then I'm involved.
 * But yes, my reason for requesting the reopen is that I think this was a classic situation where an admin close should be required, RMNAC notwithstanding. That is itself controversial, obviously. Andrewa (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your characterization of the argument form, and I think "He is not an environmentalist according to the definition we use for environmentalist" is a pretty decent argument. It's a word which encompasses a set of values, and putting it in the title means that we are ascribing those values to him ourselves. "Calling him an environmentalist is controversial" is also a pretty decent argument, which seems to have supported itself in the discussion already. As multiple people pointed out, there's nothing that says you can't put that he is an environmentalist in the article; the only difference is you'll have to add a reputable source for it. But nowhere in the article right now is he called an environmentalist, while the first sentence calls him an industry consultant and the disambiguation page calls him an environmental consultant.
 * As to why I'm reluctant to reopen the discussion, even though after reading I realise that I might not have been the best person to be the closer; I made the close believing I was an acceptable closer, in good faith, and I do continue to think that it was the right close according to the intents of the RMCI guidelines. Now that the actions have been done, I don't believe the community is better served by me undoing them (though it'd be great if an uninvolved admin could take a look at it and give some guidance before this moves to MRV). I do think that you should start a discussion immediately about which disambiguator the community can come to a consensus on, but it shouldn't be a discussion anchored by the page remaining a disambiguator so many consider unacceptable. You might be able to build a consensus case for 'environmental consultant'. Safrolic (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "He is not an environmentalist according to the definition we use for environmentalist"... Agree that this is a reasonable characterization of the argument form. But the definition we use for environmentalist according to Wikipedia naming policy is that this usage is backed by reliable secondary sources. The claim that these sources deny that he is or was an environmentalist is completely without merit. No evidence was provided at all. It was all just primary sources that parrot the Greenpeace POV.
 * So, you think that even if you weren't the right person to close the discussion, the close should stand because at the time you (perhaps wrongly) thought you were the right person, is that right? Andrewa (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that despite my inexperience, I judged the consensus of the involved editors correctly, and weighed the arguments given properly. I reached a conclusion which complies with the spirit of Wikipedia's policies, in particular WP:NPOV, and said in the closing that if editors want to we can immediately discuss a new move to a permanent title. I did all of this in good faith, reading through the various policy pages to make sure I was on solid ground. It's been a few days since the close, and no other editors have joined in this request to reopen, or indicated dissatisfaction with the close, even though all but one of the editors who opposed the RM proposal have been active since, and several of them have previously contributed in MRV. feminist actually sent me thanks for the move action, though I'm not sure how impactful that is. Reading through the past year or so of MRV discussions (a lot of Case law, so to speak), I don't think (absent anyone else saying differently) that this close would be overturned. If other editors were unsatisfied, or if I thought I had closed badly, I would reopen it.
 * With regard to your argument, Dialectric pointed out that most sources online calling him an environmentalist are published by him or his organizations. Regardless of whether it's POV pushing to say either that he is or isn't an environmentalist, WP:NDESC says that descriptive article titles should avoid non-neutral or judgmental words. As DanielRigal pointed out, nobody was asking for "former environmentalist" or "fake environmentalist". It's unfortunate that WP:ATDIS does not specify that NPOV applies to disambiguators, but it would be surprising if it did not. With such a clear consensus in the discussion that titling him as an environmentalist was POV pushing, I chose the best neutral option of those suggested. Again, if you're specifically unhappy with consultant, please don't hesitate to begin a new discussion on moving the page to a different, permanent ambiguator everyone can agree on. Safrolic (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This still does not even attempt to address the issue that this should not have been closed by a non-admin. I think we've probably exhausted the discussion here, which leaves MR as the next step, logically. I'll think about that. Andrewa (talk) 02:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It was a non admin close by an involved editor on a sensitive topic. With one objection (and I'll add myself so that's two) you should revert and request an uninvolved close through the normal process. 51.75.75.162 (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, editor using 4EverProxy! If you're Patrick Moore, listed with three accounts on his article's talk page, including User:Pmoore2222, you should know that you're not allowed to make edits directly to your page, as it presents a conflict of interest. There are warnings on the talk pages of all three of these accounts to that effect, as well as a promise from Moore to an admin in the past that he would not edit his own page anymore. I mention this because one hour before your comment here Pmoore2222 removed the redirect on the article in either an attempt to revert the move, or to split the page; I'm not sure which. The diff for that can be found [here], but it has already been reverted by another editor involved in the original move request. Whether or not you're Moore, I want to clarify that when I said "other editors" I meant "other editors involved in the move request discussion". Any uninvolved admins or page movers would also count. Because I did not find consensus for the specific disambiguator I moved the page to, you are free to make an immediate move request back to the _(environmentalist) disambiguator the article was originally hosted at, though (or any other disambiguator you feel like). To do that, just follow the instructions at WP:RM. You should know that a move request is not a vote; the eventual close, which would not be by me as I am now involved, would be based on which arguments were both compelling and shared by a majority or strong plurality of the editors. Since consensus was found that the environmentalist disambiguator was not appropriate, this might be an uphill battle. If you are Patrick Moore, you also should know that in such a discussion (or at any time) Meatpuppetry is frowned upon; this is calling in other people who agree with you to join in the discussion just to share their agreement, e.g. via talking about it on twitter. I hope this information is helpful to you. Safrolic (talk) 05:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

More on Moore
he is aware that he's not allowed to edit his own page, and he attempted to do just that a couple days ago, with his own account... Diff please? Andrewa (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Relevant diff and his awareness (and a notification not replied to three weeks ago).Safrolic (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And it's mentioned that he has three accounts disclosed on the article talk page... one is Pmoore2222, what are the others? Andrewa (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * They're mentioned on the article talk page, in a box at the top. Safrolic (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So they are! Pmooregreenspirit and Greenspiritman. There are COI notices at all three user talk pages, but the possibility that these are multiple accounts and/or meatpuppetry doesn't seem to have been raised on any of the three user talk pages.
 * Nor on the article talk page... or have I missed that too? But the user talk pages is the place to raise it first. Andrewa (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I missed this
You !voted on the RM, and then about three hours later closed it and moved the page, is that correct? Andrewa (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was supporting the consensus of the discussion, and saying that it should be closed and done already, then I saw that it was over 7 days old and was closable, so I closed it. I did not count it in determining consensus. Safrolic (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that, technically, that might even be sufficient reason for a move review. So again I ask that you reverse the move and reopen the RM. Andrewa (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's been a stable article title despite the twitter attention (if not for Patrick's direct involvement), with nobody else from the original discussion having any complaints about it. I don't think it helps anyone at all to undo that temporarily. I asked you before about the appropriateness of three other possible paths; is it possible for an uninvolved admin to weigh in, or to re-close the RM (with whatever decision they make), without re-opening it, or for the original participants to affirm the close with a strawpoll? If you're only going to continue suggesting that I re-open it, I think that you should go ahead and take it to a move review, because that's just about the most disruptive thing I could do at this point. Safrolic (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Andrewa (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing
Seriously, Safrolic, I know you don't like me, but you can't seriously think we can include uncited material in our articles—and you can't seriously be editwarring over it. Do like I have—add a source that actually says what was stated. Nothing's been removed, after all—there's only a request for sources that actually state everything there. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The RCMP announced  Thursday that SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. and two of its units – SNC-Lavalin Construction Inc. and SNC Lavalin International Inc. – have been charged with one count of fraud and one count of corruption.
 * SNC-Lavalin says it will contest the charges and enter not-guilty pleas.
 * The RCMP allege that between Aug. 16, 2001, and Sept. 20, 2011, the three entities bribed a Libyan official or officials with $47,689,868 Canadian to “use their positions to influence any acts or decisions of the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.” (This is Libya under Ghaddafi)
 * During the same period, the RCMP allege that all three entities defrauded “by means of deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means” the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya with regards to a manmade river project in Libya, for a value of $129,832,830 Canadian.
 * - Montreal Gazette, Feb 19


 * On 19 February 2015, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC) laid charges against SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. and two of its subsidiaries, SNC-Lavalin International Inc. and SNC-Lavalin Construction Inc. Each firm was charged with one count of fraud under section 380 of the Criminal Code of Canada, and one count of corruption under Section 3(1)(b) of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act. The charges allege that between 2001 and 2011, SNC-Lavalin and two of its units paid CA$48 million in bribes in Libya to officials in the government of Muammar Gaddafi. They also allege that at the same time, the company defrauded Libyan organizations of CA$130 million. SNC-Lavalin announced the same day they were contesting the charges and planned to enter a non-guilty plea.
 * Article text being supported. I can see now that there are certain specific bits (PPSC and the specific code sections) that were in the original release from SNC-Lavalin. I would appreciate it if you could be specific, not only when citing policies, but when stating problems with the article. At this point, I am getting pretty frustrated, and I would like some outside input on this article and the discussion behind it. Where do you think would be appropriate to raise that request? Safrolic (talk) 04:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20150221152724/http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ottawa/ne-no/pr-cp/2015/0219-lavalin-eng.htm Will this solve your issues with this paragraph? Safrolic (talk) 04:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a primary source. It'd be fine as a supplementary source.
 * Think of it this way. We have literally thousands of sources to choose from to source this heavily-covered issue.  If we can't find even one (that is not a primary source) that lists some of these details, then why should this article include them?  If the detailed professional articles that have been filling the news over the last few months can't give these details the time of day, why should we?  We again run into issues of WP:WEIGHT (giving weight to details our sources do not), as well as WP:OR, as this information didn't come to us as a result of third-party research.
 * If there were a third-party source that gave these details, we'd be fine with regard to WP:OR, but we'd still have WP:WEIGHT issues. I threw in a  tag under the assumption that these details had actually been reported on somewhere, and we just needed to find where.  If that's not the case, they really will have to be removed.
 * Could you explain why you would want to include unreported information in the first place? I'm at a loss divining your motivations. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As I've said multiple times, a primary/self-published source is perfectly acceptable for sourcing non-controversial claims about itself. In this case, an RCMP press release is acceptable for citing what the RCMP non-controversially says they did. (Unless you're saying these specific laws may not have actually been the fraud/bribery laws they charged the companies with?) My motivation is a comprehensive, well-written, well-researched article, providing a complete treatment of the subject, where a non-expert would find nothing lacking. This is an event that happened several years ago, well-outside the major media coverage the case has gotten recently. I would like your next reply to contain a suggestion on where would be most appropriate in this case to seek out outside input on the article, the discussion behind it, and appropriate editor conduct. Safrolic (talk) 04:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Safrolic is consistent with my reading of WP:PRIMARY for statement of facts Harris Seldon (talk) 05:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer my question. Why? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Because my motivation is a comprehensive, well-written, well-researched article, providing a complete treatment of the subject, where a non-expert would find nothing lacking. This is an event that happened several years ago, well-outside the major media coverage the case has gotten recently. It therefore does not have the thousands of contemporary sources current events do. As I've said multiple times, a primary/self-published source is perfectly acceptable for sourcing non-controversial claims about itself. In this case, an RCMP press release is acceptable for citing what the RCMP non-controversially says they did. If you find a better source, then put it in, but a better source is not *necessary* for these specific details to be adequately sourced. I still want your next reply to contain a suggestion on where would be most appropriate in this case to seek out outside input on the article, the discussion behind it, and appropriate editor conduct. Safrolic (talk) 05:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Clarification
Re: "templating the regulars is aggressive and disruptive". A report at WP:ANEW requires a "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Disruption allegations
Please take allegations of disruption such as those contained in this post to my user talk page. They do not belong on the article talk page. Andrewa (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've said what I wanted to say, and you're fully capable of reading it where I said it, as are all the other editors involved in the discussions. If you would prefer to respond to it on your talk page, please feel free to paste it over there. Safrolic (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom: Disputes at SNC-Lavalin affair
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Canadian Politics Arbitration Case
If you do not want to receive further notifications for this case, please remove yourself from this list. You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 7, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * For clarity, the scope is bigger than SNC Lavalin. It does encompass anything from the Trans Mountain Pipeline to the Mark Norman affair. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 04:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Does that mean there will be other editors coming in from other articles to discuss their own disputes, or..? Safrolic (talk) 05:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Canadian Politics Proposed Decision - Postponed
This message is to inform you that the proposed decision for the Canadian Politics Arbitration Case has been postponed to June 21 28, 2019. For the Arbitration Committee --Cameron11598 (Talk) 16:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for letting me know about this- will there be any discussion beforehand? And is the committee considering postponing another week to let the hubbub die down? Safrolic (talk) 07:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Safrolic, I'm not sure what you are asking in regards to discussion, however I hope this answers your question. Arbitration committee members do discuss the proposed decision on that page, the community and participants are usually allowed to comment but only on the talk page. As far as I am aware there are no plans to further postpone the proposed decision phase. If this changes I will update the parties accordingly. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 15:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration proposed decision posted
A proposed remedy or finding of fact which relates to you has been posted in the Canadian politics arbitration case. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. The guide to arbitration may also be helpful. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 06:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics closed
An arbitration case regarding Canadian politics has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
 * 1) is prohibited from editing SNC-Lavalin affair and its talk page for a period of six months. This restriction may be appealed at WP:ARCA after three months.
 * 2) Curly Turkey is warned that future violations of Wikipedia's conduct policies and guidelines, including WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:ASPERSIONS, may result in blocks or bans.
 * 3) Curly Turkey,, , , , , and are admonished for edit warring.
 * 4) All editors are reminded to seek dispute resolution and to use appropriate resources, such as the dispute resolution noticeboard, for outside opinions and suggestions for resolving problems.

For the Arbitration Committee, SQL Query me!  03:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

More RfCs at SNC
For what it is worth, I have put the latest RfC on the list for closure further to your suggestion that we close it down. In any event, I would appreciate you sounding off on the options we started discussing beforehand... and seem to be continuing in this latest RfC. Cheers and Thanks.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So, it looks like what it boils down to is, more specifically than what words we can use with regard to the subject of the article, how we want to define it. That's a step back from where we originally started out with, when an editor removed the word "scandal" because it was POV and "a serious policy violation" to use it at all. We have now established that it is, in fact, appropriate to call the Affair a scandal. I see five options here:
 * A: "is a political scandal" (with "The controversy..." starting the second sentence or the lead sentence of the second paragraph.)
 * B: "is a political controversy" (with "The scandal..." starting the second sentence or the lead sentence of the second paragraph.)
 * C: "is a political dispute (or some other word)"
 * D: "is a political scandal or controversy"
 * E: "concerns allegations of political interference" (avoids saying that it is anything at all, both words in lead sentences of other paragraphs.)


 * At this point, we should have an RfC with all options listed out, and !votes in the form of multiple options, ranked by preference and followed by a short reasoning (with diffs to previous arguments or outside evidence if necessary). E.g.;


 * A, E, D. - I see substantial evidence for the appropriateness of A in the form of: Breadth and depth of media coverage describing it as a political scandal, both tertiary sources cited so far describing it as a political scandal, google search result count disparities between affair, scandal, and controversy, all dictionaries giving definitions of scandal matching the events, past agreement from the editor opposing it that it is a scandal, and Wikipedia's own treatment of the scope of political scandals directly south of us. I feel like we're arguing about whether the sky is blue here, honestly. Because of this, A would be my first preference. E is a second choice, not one I'm happy about though. Though it is very awkward wording, D would be a distant third choice. I would not rank B or C. Safrolic (talk) 07:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * This will make it a lot easier to see what people actually want, while right now we're all just talking about acceptable stopgaps. I think it'll move the discussion forward. Safrolic (talk) 07:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC text
How should the SNC-Lavalin Affair be defined in the article's lead sentence? The previous RfC found consensus for using both the words "scandal" and "controversy" in the lead section, but did not find consensus on how to define the subject in the first sentence. The options are as follows:


 * A: "...is a political scandal..." (with "The controversy..." starting the second sentence or the lead sentence of the second paragraph.)
 * B: "...is a political controversy..." (with "The scandal..." starting the second sentence or the lead sentence of the second paragraph.)
 * C: "...is a political dispute (or some other word)..."
 * D: "...is a political scandal or controversy..."
 * E: "...concerns allegations of political interference..." (avoids saying that it is anything at all, both words in lead sentences of other paragraphs.)

This is a ranked preference RfC. To make the closer's job of assessing consensus easier, instead of !voting Support or Oppose, please indicate which option(s) you support in order of preference, including a brief reasoning as usual. You may rank as many or few options as you like. e.g "E, B, C - because...", or "A - because...", or "D,A,C,E,B - because..." You may still suggest alternative proposals as usual.

April 2020
- MrX 🖋 14:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

File:&#34;Wilson-Raybould scandal&#34; google search result showing only 3,400 results.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:&, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)