On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 06:32:38 -0600, Phil Sandifer
<sandifer(a)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?
--
Peter in Canberra