From: Phil Sandifer
I think you're misrepresenting how this goes.
Let's take, say, Adam
Carr and Skyring. Or Slrubenstein and Xed. Here is generally how it
goes.
User 1: Forcefully stated idea
User 2: Polite disagreement
User 1: Hostility at disagreement
User 2: Continued efforts at disagreement
User 1: Increasing hostility. Some abuse.
User 2: Bewildered suggestion of a compromise
User 1: Rejection of compromise. Hostility. Claim to being willing to
compromise. (We're about a month into the cycle now)
User 3: Protection of article.
Next month, on a new article...
User 1: Forcefully stated idea
User 2: Wincing, disagreement.
User 1: Accusation that User 2 is biased and shouldn't edit this
article. Other abuse.
User 2: Stubbornness, some reluctance to discuss this again.
User 1: Repeated statement to be willing to compromise, coupled with
complete lack of compromise offered and streams of abuse.
User 2: Requests for page to be protected.
User 3: Protects page.
Next month, on yet another article
User 1: Forcefully stated idea
User 2: Pointing out that to date, nobody has agreed with
User 1. User 1: Accusation of a cabal. User 2: Mild personal
attack. User 1: Arbcoms User 2.
User 1 should be asked to be polite after "some abuse", then requested
to review "no personal attacks" after "Hostility".
User 1 should be referred to arbcom for "Other abuse", and will make the
committee's job easier if he offers "streams of abuse" just as they're
beginning to look into it all.
No need to slap User 2 (either on wrist or back). Arbcom should
intervene earlier and set User 1 straight, before he tempts his victims
to take matters into their own hands.
Uncle Ed