User talk:Drcrazy102/Archive 15

Transhumanism (again)
This case is likely to be archived, because it has passed the Do Not Archive date for the bot. If you are planning to continue moderation, please extend the date. If not, please close the case and request that the parties pursue formal mediation or a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Muhammad
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Muhammad. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 February 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Malcolm X
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Malcolm X. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

ResellerRatings DRN Case
Hey, I just wanted to ask for your comments about the "Resolving the Above Dispute" section and  by mainly because their last comment cast a direct aspersion (of COI) against  and attempts to create a "formal"/arbitrary solution instead of a discussion & consensus resolution. Thoughts about this? They recently added themselves to the DRN list of Volunteers as well; so they may just be inexperienced in DRN practices, but it may be best if someone with ... less of a "hammer and anvil" approach, possibly even with "tact", could approach them about this. Either way; Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Rendering an opinion as opposed to mediating is an acceptable approach at DRN. It's one which, in my opinion, should be reserved to those instances when there is very clearly only one correct result (usually under policy) or when you're well into a mediation and need it to move the discussion along. But that's just my opinion. On the basis of "first do no harm," what I'd decided to do in that case was to wait to see if Joel's opinion "sticks" without objection from the parties (without regard to whether it is accepted and adopted by the parties). If either party objected to it, I was going to tell them how to object to Joel's continued participation (or file an objection myself) and move on to mediation at DRN with a new volunteer or at MEDCOM. If that happened, it was going to be pretty apparent to Joel what the problems were; if it didn't happen and the case was closed with Joel's opinion as an apparently acceptable resolution, I was going to have a private word with Joel and suggest that he work at 3O for awhile. I'm still in that holding pattern since neither of the parties has edited WP since Joel opined. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, no worries then. I just felt that there was something a bit off-kilter with Joel's response but, as always, you've already got it covered to Plan Z. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 11:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dunkirk evacuation
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dunkirk evacuation. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Time Person of the Year
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Time Person of the Year. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 February 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)