", 9 July 2013 (UTC) 

 :Buster, I see it just a bit differently. I don't see making common sense statements as being a troublemaker, nor do I see sitting back quietly as helpful to our readers in this case. Also, from the most recent RfC, the most popular idea is to not follow the confines from the previous RfC, but to work with what we have to make a sensible 4 para-ish section. Stating that idea doesn't seem to be causing hard feelings. Tis is the collaboration process. Also, the obvious two RfC were not read correctly because they did not take into consideration bogus arguments (like one stating the spill did no damage to anything anywhere). By the guidelines, see should be thrown out. But this would require the closing admin have a knowleg of the scale of the spill and some details, or else he cannot know what arguments are bogus. To state this is not being a troublemaker, it is following guidelines.   22:00"