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.