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