User talk:Likebox/DraftMotion

I'm very happy to see you take the time to work on the Arbcom appeal. I have some comments on what you wrote in the section "Statement by Likebox (2)" about your points on dealing with talk page comments/censorship (I may have some comments about other points later). The problem is that Arbcom usually deals with cases where some form of intervention is really necessary. Their mindset when looking at this appeal will be fully grounded in such cases. This then means that you have to explain why physics topics are (usually) inherently different from the pages where Arbcom often intervenes (usually politics subjects, sometimes editors who really push fringe views a lot). A concrete example, consider User:GoRight's present ban prompted by his actions on climate change articles.

Now, my experience is that the really problematic users who eventually end up being blocked or topic banned, tend to engage in personal attacks, tend to wikilawyer a lot to get their way, tend to start threads at AN/I. That's simply because after losing their argument on the points relevant to the wiki-article in question, they can only start procedural arguments. So, we need to explicitely mention that Brews is not another User:GoRight, and that most physics topics to which Brews used to contribute are totally different in nature than e.g. some Obama related article. In the latter case, someone repeatedly raising the issue of Obama's place of birth becomes disruptive very soon, while in case of a physics discussion it is often helpful to have lengthy discussions. And we need to explain that last point as well, as Arbcom members will immediately think of the odd physics crank arguing endlessly, instead of the much more typical useful lengthy discussions. Count Iblis (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Count--- you are welcome to make such a comment--- I fear that it is too difficult for me to make it in the narrow confines of this petition. I am hoping Brews can make an "I'll keep talk-page comments from meandering too much" statement, and hopefully this can pass. I want to get this done, not make a statement.Likebox (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Count Iblis makes very sound points. The mindset of the arbitrators will be initially as pointed out, and will color completely their reaction to the proposal. A preamble to set context is a good idea, and maybe that can be provided in an orientation paragraph at the outset, even if it is not standard format, and is only background, not part of the proposal per se. Otherwise, everything will go off on a blinkered tangent that will be very difficult to correct once underway. Brews ohare (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC) To be a bit more precise, the point to be made is that the long exchanges were not rants, but technical exchanges, a not unusual occurrence on Talk pages of technical articles where some back and forth is needed to clarify details. Brews ohare (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The best part
No comment on other aspects of the page, but the following part caught my eye. "The editor in question is a world-recognized expert on engineering physics". It seems that the project has never had a biographical entry on this seminal figure of international renown. I wonder if someone will write one up. Tim Shuba (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Tim: Yes, I am not too comfortable with the "world-recognized expert" description either. I don't think such a claim is necessary to make the point that useful contributions have been made. Brews ohare (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Fixed it. Sorry. I've never done this before.Likebox (talk) 02:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)