Don't bother, I'm gone.

I think you're wrong about Brews' treatment being shabby. He persistently evaded substantive discussions in some areas (cf his lack of substantive response about the kilometre). I wasn't the only editor who found him evasive. That isn't to detract from his other positive qualities and benefits to WP, but he was really his own worst enemy as well. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of an ArbCom system should be to resolve difficult conflicts in which some conflict has escalated. It is only natural that in such an escalation people on both sides may have started to behave in problematic ways to some extent.

If you put aside any opinions on whether the topic ban was justified and simply look at the result of that topic ban, then cearly it did not work. We moved from a dispute about speed of light to a disputes about whether or not Brews involvement in e.g. WP:ESCA violates his topic ban, which leads to additional sanctions and then people argue that Brews is violating those additional sanctions and want to impose blocks on him.

To me all this suggests that my proposals at the original ArbCom case was not that bad. Simply close discussions by consensus. If Brews is engaged in long winded discussions with me and someone else, and most other editors think that "enough is enough" then they can propose that the discussions stop. I would then be prepared to put aside my dissenting opinion that more discussions are ok. aside. Brews should do the same, if not and he would persist then that would lead to more straightforward edit warring that can be dealt with in the usual way.

On the global warming page, we had this policy since 2007 which worked well. Only recently was a change made due to complaints by sceptics. The global warming related articles are on a sanctions regime and there is a noticeboard for violations of some rules. What you see there is that every day people are posting complaints in an effort to get someone banned. Count Iblis (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Closure by consensus" wouldn't work, it just moves the debate up a meta-level. Instead of debating X, you're debating whether there is a consensus to close X.

As an aside the whole GW stuff is a joke that I avoid. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About GW, let's not forget that the main article is a FA and that we had tendentious editors that we were able to tolerate. No one except for Scibaby had to be banned. So, for a pure Wiki law-enforcing POV, this is a very good example.

About closing, you only get long winded discussions about that if there is no consensus for closing. But then, the long winded discussions by Brews cannot then be seen to be a problem that everyone agrees on. Also, in case of an intervention to close discussions, Brews and all those who were continuing long winded discussions would have to face punishment, not just Brews. Count Iblis (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Count: Of course you've proposed a very workable procedure for closing Talk page debate if the majority can be found to close it. I've proposed a procedure that incorporates that idea in a formal approach. Of course, if the majority finds an argument simply boring, they are free to simply ignore the thread containing that discussion and open one they find of merit. If they are pursued by the interminable bore into the new thread, that is adequate grounds for claiming disruption of the Talk page and appealing to AN/I. (Contrariwise, if the majority butts into a thread of interest to the splinter group, not to contribute, but to jeer and snicker, the majority can be taken off to AN/I for disruption.) On the other hand, the raising of an issue that the majority simply cannot leave alone is not in this category: the majority must accept discussion that they are themselves adding to. Brews ohare (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Price: I would like to point out that the issues you raise above were introduced after I was already banned from engaging in technical arguments: it was not an unwillingness to respond. I also felt that the issues that were troublesome in the SoL case were separate from the issues you raised, but had no opportunity to explore that with you. If you are so-inclined, send me e-mail about this matter and we can discuss it all more amicably. Brews ohare (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday March 21st, Columbia University area Last: 11/15/2009 This box: view • talk •

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Day NYC, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Lights Camera Wiki, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example User:ScienceApologist will present on "climate change, alternative medicine, UFOs and Transcendental Meditation" (see the November meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back. And if the weather is good, we'll have a star party with the telescopes on the roof of Pupin Hall!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]