[WikiEN-l] Re: Abusive editors

Thu Mar 10 19:34:45 UTC 2005

> 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