User talk:Drcrazy102/Archive 6

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Seeking conduct advice from a DR/N volunteer
I'm contacting you about a purely personal matter that, while stems from the article talk page discussion, shouldn't cause it to spill over onto your user talk page. If it does, feel free to move this discussion or remove it entirely. First of all thanks for your efforts at an informal DR. If you're not too busy would you be so kind as to also indulge me in a little informal old fashioned WP:RFCU? In your last comment (as of this writing), you said, for the second time, that both of us need to review NPA. I don't mind being admonished once in a while, I acknowledge I'm prone to frustration like most people and after so many years on the project, I'm still always looking for ways to improve. So in that spirit, for my own edification, do you really think I have violated NPA in the intervening period (since a few days ago when you first suggested we both could use a refresher)? I've really been trying hard not to. If so, could you point out how you feel my recent behavior was wrong (again, in the period since you became involved) and offer advice as a DR/N volunteer on how I can handle things like this better in the future?

I have read over my comments and I can see how some of my early statements could be construed as not very NPA-ish but, at the time I saw an WP:SPA, saying things like this (which I immediately removed from the talk page) and it was pretty obvious (in my mind) what was going on. My early comments regarding victim blaming, etc. were meant as statements of fact to "ring the alarm bells" for other editors who might not be familiar with that editor's problematic POV, and not intended as personal attacks directed toward the editor himself. Like I said, having just re-read them, I see how they may not come across that way, and that is my fault for not properly wording my concerns. But, your first intervention made me go back and re-read both policy (as you suggested) and my comments and, since then, I believe I have limited my replies to content and analysis and interpretation of the sources. If you disagree, and can spare the time, I would appreciate some feedback.

Since you and I are both commenting in a current dust up, in the interest of transparency I posted here instead of email. However, if you choose to reply and don't wish to answer publicly, you may remove this and answer by email if you feel more comfortable giving honest behavior advice in private. Thanks in advance.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 07:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't worry too much about little ol' me, I know which admins to call if anyone gets too fired up and aggravated/aggravating. I doubt I'll have any problems though for a long while yet. I am grateful that you are choosing to message me on my talk page as it does help to just keep everything transparent and "above board".
 * In regards to your request for comment on user conduct (hope that's right, the link is now a disambig page), you aren't really breaching any of the NPA guides, but more treading a bit close to them. While I mediate (formally or informally) I try to get everyone to focus solely on the content of the discussion rather than attributing anything to anyone when in a negative context or lighting, but I don't really care much if it is something positive. But that's me rambling a bit; for you specifically, it is saying things like "None of the sources even come close to backing up what you are saying. None of the sources you give say anything about "a chase"" which could be worded instead to focus only on the content rather than a contributer's proposed content, eg "The sources do not support the content being proposed/added. The sources also do not mention anything referring to 'a chase'." Do you notice how the second is focused solely on the content and sources being discussed, whereas the first is obliquely passing judgement on the user's proposal/addition? Minor wording semantics but nonetheless have a noticeable impact on discussions that are contentious or otherwise lively with comments.
 * I hope this helps allay your concerns as I don't really have a problem with "what" you're saying (usually the biggest concern) but I do have some minor concerns about "how" the message is/may be interpreted. The other user has raised bigger concerns for me (especially after seeing the diff above) but they seem to have calmed down a great deal from where they were before. (I won't mention their name as you seem to desire at least a modicum of privacy, but o felt you deserved an honest comparison of the difference between my concerns for you both. I'm trying to just help you and them reach a peace table safely without being blocked or sanctioned along the way)
 * If you have any further questions or concerns then feel free to reply, or f you ever want to share any new articles, discussions or user boxes, message me or ping me. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 10:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I see what you're saying. That makes sense. Thank you for your time and honesty. I will take that advice to heart and hopefully it will serve me (and the project) well in the future.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 02:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth II
TBH, it wouldn't completely surprise me, if the Rfc-in-question came alive again. So far though, it has the sounds of crickets in it. :) GoodDay (talk) 01:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, for now I will use the "cot-cob" templates then ... just in case it does come alive. However, the first RfC seems to be heading for WP:SNOWBALL close with a voting count for Options 1, 2, and 3 being 10, 4 and 2 respectively. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Burning of Parliament
As you figured out in a few minutes, I converted an improper disruptive close into a regular close. The way that one of the editors closed the thread was disruptive, but DRN is voluntary, and I made it into a close due to the non-participation. I think that we now agree. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I didn't see that your first edit was "just then". Impatience is my 'virtue' at times . Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 01:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Metapolitefsi
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Metapolitefsi. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of military occupations
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of military occupations. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Post-RfC at Elizabeth II
Drcrazy-- A question: You closed an RfC at Talk:Elizabeth II four days ago, stating the consensus for the opening sentence of the article. Since yesterday, though, editors (prompted by one who has a history of causing such drama) have again revived the "Queen of the UK and 15 other..." wording that was presented and rejected in the aforementioned RfC. Another is already amending the wording the RfC settled on. Are these actions disruptive? I recognise that consensus can change, but, per WP:CCC, "proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive". It certainly seems so to me. Thanks. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Drcrazy: if you take any notice of the above, you would be well advised to look with care at the ongoing discussion on the Talk page, and, whether or not you regard the above links to two of the participating editors as snide and disorderly, you will be able to see that they are not disupting, but, with others, seeking to improve the article in the face of persistent obstruction: ''...I am finding some of Mies.'s more recent comments less and less helpful or even particularly meaningful so far as concerns the points others are making here. As I see it, this is impeding progress in resolving what we would find more acceptable for the first paragraph, which I believe would otherwise have been settled by now.'' Qexigator (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's one editor's comments I linked to; you might do well to look with care yourself.
 * Regardless, you've only tried to distract from the question by launching a personal attack. My comments have been pertinent and reflect my opinion; I've numerous times presented possible alternatives that attempted to address everyone's concerns. Interesting and revealing, then, you believe my remarks are an "impediment" to a more acceptable first paragraph; it sounds quite like you can't stand contrary opinions getting in your way. I'm certain, though, you also seemed before to understand what consensus is. Still, you might want to re-familiarize yourself with WP:AGF, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:NPA. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt that Drcrazy and anyone else will be able to see that the personal attacks have come from Mies., such as above. The links are to two editors: one who has a history... and Another is already... The above is an example of Mies.'s comments, where there is a tendency to put unfounded aspersions on others in a snide and disorderly manner. There is no need to speculate on motivation.  Qexigator (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt anyone can see through all these disingenuous misrepresentations of statements of fact and the speculation canard and see you're still trying to draw attention away from my request put to Drcrazy. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, considering that people are getting so heated on both sides about the wording (whether rightly or wrongly, I don't much care due to my nature as an "Australian Republic" supporter). At this point, my solution to both sides is to take this to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard or the Formal Mediation page so that this can be discussed in a structured way that is focused solely on the content, rather than creating spotlights on editor behaviours (behavioural problems such as commenting on contributors is handled by Mediators on both pages). If editors believe that there is any serious behavioural issues of editors, discuss it on ANI. As it stands though, I am unwilling to be involved in the dispute about the wording of the lead, nor in the dispute between editors. If the dispute goes to DRN, I will see about helping there, but I will likely only help in keeping the discussion focused solely on content rather than editors. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. My aim was not to get you involved in the content dispute; just to clarify whether or not reviving what an RfC had only just settled against or changing what an RfC had only just settled on was troublesome (and so, if it persisted, what would be the best steps to take). I'll keep the above in mind. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  00:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record MIESIANIACAL  subverted the RfC in question, distorted its results and now mischaracterizes the continuing dispute as being driven by "one who has a history of causing such drama", where in fact he is the sole source of drama. There probably should be an ANI discussion on user behavior here. NickCT (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , when making such accusations (even on user talk pages), it is quite highly suggested to back statements of such alleged actions with diffs so as to avoid possible Personal Attacks or accusations thereof. At any rate, I will be archiving this thread tomorrow. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * - Do you think you could go back and review your reading of the RfC? You'll note the initial discussion looked like it was finishing up with quite strong support for the "15 other independent states" language. Once it became obvious the RfC was settling for language he didn't agree with, trackrate tried and failed to disrail the RfC by offering an alternative resolution to the ones initially considered. When that didn't work he proposed yet another alternative this time succeeding to divert the conversation from the language which had initially gained support. Support for that alternative was miscounted. Support was strong, but only as strong as the support that the initial "15 other independent states" language had got.
 * If you want to subvert an RfC which has shown clear support for language you don't like, a great way to do it is to just continually propose alternative language until you chance on something that sticks. Frankly, it's pretty clear the WP:DR system was gamed here.
 * The RfC should have closed after support for the "15 other independent states" language developed. If opponents had then wanted to change it, they should opened a separate RfC, instead of subverting the initial one. When you said "A solution has been agreed upon", the reality was that multiple solutions had been agreed on over the course of the conversation. NickCT (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason to doubt that Drcrazy made a thorough job of reading and making a shrewd and fair assessment of the comments of all participants in the RfC, including ''Given that the dissension from which the RfC arose has resolved, the RfC is effectively closed, letting editing services proceed in the usual way. Qexigator 17:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)'' Qexigator (talk) 16:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)