On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 06:32:38 -0600, Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
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 run out of Wikipedia. User 2 should be slapped on the wrist and solemnly told "Don't do that again." Then privately thanked for opposing the stupid.
That's silly. How are we to correct errors if we follow your reasoning?