[WikiEN-l] Re: Abusive editors

Thu Mar 10 19:43:22 UTC 2005

--- Phil Sandifer <sandifer at 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.

Yout left out how User 1 accuses User 2 AND User 3 of
being members of the cabal out to get him.

RickK

__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ 