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.
-Snowspinner
On Mar 10, 2005, at 5:03 AM, actionforum(a)comcast.net wrote:
-------------- Original message --------------
actionforum(a)comcast.net wrote:
-------------- Original message --------------
I think it's important to note that baiting
users into making
personal
attacks is even worse than the personal attacks that ensue, however.
-Snowspinner
Abusers often blame the victim. Sadly, sometimes the victims believe
them.
-- Silverback
Sorry, I'm a little dense today. Please spell out the point you are
trying to make.
The idea of name callers blaming the victim for "baiting" them is
analogous to spousal abusers who claim the spouse "egged them on",
"was asking for it" or committed some other stupid oversight or
offense. The spousal abuse victim, often will defend the abuser
claiming it was their fault, they weren't perfect in some way.
Of course, namecallers think their victims deserved it, egged them on,
baited them, or was being unreasonable, or refused to acknowledge that
the namecaller was right.
Somehow, just as a lot of people manage to avoid abusing their
spouses, a lot of people refrain from namecalling. The difference
is more in the abuser or namecaller than in the victim or provocature.
-- Silverback
-- Silverback
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l