Semi Protection

UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archives/Proposed Policy: Prohibiting Interactions

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search
This is an archive of past UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archives discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

Proposed Policy: Prohibiting Interactions

Please note that the proposed policy has now been enacted. It can be found at UESPWiki:Interaction Ban.

I'd like to propose officially prohibiting Elliot and rpeh from interacting with each other, in any way, on the wiki. Both have been told as much, unofficially, many times. Given that past requests have failed to resolve the situation, a new approach is clearly needed. There is wikipedia precedent for the proposed restrictions, for example this motion or this finding from their arbitration committee.

A secondary proposal, if the community first agrees with the interaction prohibition, is to remove all current warnings from rpeh and Elliot's talk pages that are related to past incidents between them (or sanction any past edits that have already removed such warnings, as appropriate). The removal would not be intended as any type of statement about the correctness of the original warning. Rather, it is to help both editors feel that they are being treated equally under the new policy. Furthermore, it allows existing discussions such as Request to remove warning to be closed; otherwise, this new policy will effectively bar the complainant from making any further contribution in his appeal process.

Restriction Enforcement

Under this proposal, the next time either Elliot or rpeh violates the restriction prohibiting any interaction, the violator gets an official warning. After the warning, any further violations by the same editor will result in the editor being blocked for a week. The editor will continue to be blocked for a week at a time, as many times as necessary.

As long as the other editor does not respond or do anything to violate the restriction, the other editor will receive no warning and won't be blocked -- this policy will result in no black marks on your record if you comply with the policy.

The primary purpose of the block is to enforce a time-out/cool-down period, and thus prevent the typical rapidly escalating back-and-forth edits. The warning/block is also critical to make it clear to the other editor that he does not need to take any action in response to the violation. Therefore, it's important that we (the administrators) intercede whenever there is a clear violation, even if it's relatively minor (especially given the hope that this policy will reduce the fallout produced by a violation). Furthermore, if other community members notice a violation that has not been addressed by an admin, they should report it here (a simple link to the questionable edit is sufficient; any type of additional explanation is likely to cause extra problems).

Personally, I don't think a pre-warning or advance notification of the new policy is necessary for either editor, given that it's clear that both editors monitor the Administrator Noticeboard. But it others feel differently, someone could post an unofficial notice on each editor's talk page as soon as this policy is considered official.

Restriction Details

Prohibited actions under the proposed restrictions would include:

  • Making comments about the other editor, indirectly or directly, on articles, on discussion pages, or in edit summaries. Substitutes for names (e.g., "you know who") would count as making an indirect comment.
  • Making any edit to the other editor's user page, user talk page, or user subpages.
  • Undoing any edit made by the other editor.
  • If these rules are violated to the point where one editor gets warned or blocked, then the other editor is also prohibited from making any references to that warning/block. Any type of comment seems likely to be interpreted as gloating or otherwise exacerbate future arguments. I want to stop this cycle, not create new ways to perpetuate it.


  • Elliot and rpeh must do everything possible to avoid derailing other community discussions with their conflicts. So if, for example, rpeh has already contributed to a discussion, Elliot needs to (a) think carefully about whether any contribution is appropriate (e.g., is the information new and important to the discussion) (b) wait long enough (e.g., 24 hours or more) before responding so that it's clear to everyone the comments are not being made hastily or emotionally (c) make absolutely sure that the comments are on topic and do not violate any of the above prohibitions. The same recommendations apply to rpeh if Elliot has already contributed to a discussion.
  • Elliot and rpeh can edit an article previously edited by the other editor, but only if at least 24 hours has passed -- and even then, cannot simply undo the other's edit(s). This condition is to ensure that the restrictions don't effectively make every article on the site off-limits for editing, given both editors' extensive contribution history.

Finally, for this to have a realistic chance of working, I think some form of the above proposal to prevent disruptive edits by anonymous editors needs to be in place. We need to be able to remove and prevent any external provocations that could possibly be interpreted as either editor trying to circumvent the restriction.

Discussion of Proposal

Before wrapping up, I'd like to suggest if rpeh or Elliot wish to respond to this discussion, that they limit themselves to constructive comments that are strictly on the topic of this proposal. I doubt it's necessary to discuss or even make any further reference to the events that have led up to this point. Regardless of who was right or wrong in the past, I believe the community primarily wants to prevent future incidents -- or, if that's not possible, allow clear action to be taken against the person truly responsible.

Again, all community members are welcome to provide feedback; it helps if you can start your comment with Support, Oppose (or Comment, etc.) as appropriate.

* Support as proposer. --NepheleTalk 05:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not prepared to put up with this kind of restriction on my editing. I edit widely and this proposal means Elliot can stop me editing anything in which I have an interest by editing it himself. Quite simply, it's about time Elliot got the block he so richly deserves. He has a history of grossly-insulting comments both on- and off-wiki. To me, has has made comments such as "I'm sorry your mother is such a fucking failure" (I apologise for the language, but it's necessary to highlight what an obnoxious person Elliot is). To Corevette, he made threats like "Until then, I will follow you. Not like a cat following you. like a wasp". To Michaeldsuarez, we have "MDS, go back to your shitty ED and go fuck one of those dumbasses over there."
Any or all of these comments are grounds for a block yet no such action has been taken. With no Elliot threatening and abusing other editors, the problem goes away. He has been repeatedly blocked at Wikipedia for the same kind of behavior he has shown here (edit warring and insulting other users) and UESP is simply lagging behind the times.
Furthermore, the topic that seems to have spawned this proposal has been quiescent for a week. This entire discussion is therefore moot. rpeh •TCE 06:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest if rpeh or Elliot wish to respond to this discussion, that they limit themselves to constructive comments that are strictly on the topic of this proposal. Way to miss a point... And what you state is hearsay in terms of logs, which is why it is a policy to prohibit such posts. As well, e-mails have no grounds for punishment, especially since there is no way to validate them, barring someone else logging into your email account. And we shouldn't forget you part in that email skirmish, rpeh. Plus, it was quite some time ago. I've moved on. You should as well. However, it is funny that you consider yourself immune from criticism when it comes to personal attacks. This page itself is a shrine to those attacks you have made. Elliot (talk) 09:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
It was a "suggestion". I chose not to follow it for the reason that Nephele has been away and probably doesn't know the kind of vitriol to which several editors have been subjected during that time.
But let's get down to cases here. During, and after, the last discussion, one of the two editors was doing research and adding information to Lore articles to back them up with facts and add new details that create a big improvement. The same editor has spent time checking edits, tweaking, adding and removing where necessary to make sure the site is as accurate as possible. The same editor has spent time answering the questions of a large number of people experiencing difficulty with the game and asking for help. The other editor has done nothing until another piece of controversy started.
Timenn has asked me not to use the "T" word so I won't, but I don't know what other word is suitable for somebody whose only contributions take place in moments of controversy.
The reason I object so strenuously to this proposal is that it gives the same sanction to both editors. One has always been, and continues to be, a huge help to this site. The other... isn't. Treating both editors the same is a gross, unforgivable injustice.
Lastly, the emails, IRC logs and other communications are admissible under WP:HARASS, which states "off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking". Indeed it can.
I am not going to be taking any further part in this debate. rpeh •TCE 10:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
And yet you fail to quote WP:NPA. It doesn't matter who has done what. I have had some pretty big issues come up lately, and I have decided to cut my activity down to a bare minimum (including other reasons on the wiki). Also, my choice of participation is not under your jurisdiction of appropriate judgment. Furthermore, it truly isn't harassment when the other person (claiming harassment) returns comments with equal vigor. Lastly, you oppose the equal sanction because you believe you have done no wrong in this entire situation, which is gross in and of itself. The rules apply to everyone. Even you. Elliot (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
If you do not have time to edit the site then how is it you have time to monitor and contribute to debates such as this and the other two that are currently active? It seems you are being economical with the truth, Elliot. 05:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I can make time (about 10 minutes or so in a day) to respond to far reaching proposals, especially one about me. I don't have time to plan and constantly work on a wiki. Is that okay with you? Elliot (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose This isn't really a solution though. This situation can and will happen again with other users. I suggest we find a more permanent policy for ongoing conflicts between users. --Tim Talk 07:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
    Furthermore Taping their mouths shut doesn't solve the problem. They still hate each other. If Elliot is truly a troll, then he'll just find another target. If Rpeh is truly... a major ass?... then he'll just find someone else to be a major ass to. I've actually got something in mind for a counter-solution and I'll put it up in a little bit (I've got more to read, apparently). --Tim Talk 16:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support God am I gonna get flak for this. I say support, until they stop going nuts over each other. I do agree that a more permanent solution is needed, but... unless said soluton appears in the next few days, support. Sorry, rpeh. No appologies to Elliot, though. <3 •Atreus• 07:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Oppose This is the first time the field as actually been even, so I will support this. I am willing to follow the restrictions if rpeh is as well. And: Elliot can stop me editing anything in which I have an interest by editing it himself; rpeh, this is a rather poor argument. I cannot read your mind to see what you will edit, and I have no intention of weaseling my way into such a position. And Timmeh, if you wish for something more solid, then precedence is the best way to go about that. Elliot (talk) 09:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I have changed my vote after careful consideration of the circumstances. Nephele's (and other's) lack of knowledge of the situation is most troubling. She can see what has been said, but there are things only rpeh and I know. This will do nothing to stop it. If anything, it will cause more tension. Elliot (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I’ll have to agree with Timmeh on this one. If any action should be taken, it is changing policy to include ongoing disputes between members. While I really like the stance Elliot shows on this matter, it is more than likely that it will happen between other members in the future. I think this proposal is a bit too “personal” for its own good and should be made more general. --Krusty 10:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
    This isn't a proposal of policy, per se. It is more of an arbitration represented and enforced by the community. You oppose for a merely semantic reason. I ask you to see it as arbitration and not policy and reconsider your vote. Elliot (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
    I know it is not a proposal of policy. I suggest it changes into that. Oppose it is. --Krusty 11:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
    It's not something that can be a policy since the enforcement would be made on a case by case basis. The policy would be so vague that it would not even be effective. All it would be is a center for resolving such conflicts; AN is enough to fill that role. Elliot (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
    I'd have to agree; the policy would end up being something like "If a dispute between two editors becomes disruptive to the Wiki as a whole, it is possible to block interaction between them" which is what is implied by precedent here.--TheAlbinoOrc 14:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Per comment above.--TheAlbinoOrc 14:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly, there needs to be something done, as it seems like at least once every week or two, I open up my RC or Watchlist and sigh when I see it filled with edits between Elliot and rpeh, both antagonizing the other, whether they're doing it deliberately or not. To address some points above:
    • I don't think either rpeh or Elliot should feel significantly limited by the actions the other one might take in terms of editing. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I think I speak for everyone that if we saw tendentious behaviour directed towards disrupting the other one's contributions simply by contributing to a wide array of articles all of a sudden, it would be seen for what it is and appropriate sanctions would be taken. Elliot has already said he wouldn't do that, and I think at least at this point, it would be pretty obvious if he did (I don't mean that to be insulting in any way, just an observation that most of Elliot's recent contributions have been to the A/N so a change in pattern would stand out). It might be a bit harder to judge if rpeh were doing that, but if it became a major concern for Elliot, that could be discussed. If necessary, we could always re-word that to say something to the effect of "editing at cross-purposes" rather than having a strict time limit.
    • While I agree that many of the things that have been said offsite could qualify under harassment policies, this arbitration is geared strictly towards the onsite interactions.
    • I also agree that rpeh has been far more productive than Elliot in the past few months, but to be fair, Elliot has made a few productive edits such as the {{od}} template and being bold with fixing the superscript in the {{unsigned}} template. (He may have made others as well, but much of my recent work has been with templates.) Notwithstanding that, however, Wikipedia has a policy on bans that I think could reasonably be extended to an interaction ban, namely this one. This is not to say that I believe that this is what rpeh is doing, however I think the policy must nevertheless apply.
    • I agree that the specifics of this case should be seen an arbitration and not policy, however I also think that this could be turned into a more generic policy for how to handle users who clearly have repeated difficulties interacting civilly (perhaps with as little tweaking as replacing the user names by User A and User B). Robin HoodTalk 15:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Elliot steals from Wikipedia and posts on UESP, and even admits it. How does copying the work of other people compare to what Rpeh has been doing? And yeah he is a friend of mine but I don't care. Elliot is a troll and Rpeh is a useful user. To punish Rpeh because of Elliot's trolling is totally unfair. 02:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
"Friend"? Lol. And in case you missed it, a bunch of things on this wiki and plenty of others use WP as a backbone. And it really isn't stealing if I give them credit, now is it? (Also, everything is licensed under CC, so that is another hole in your theory.) Oh, and thanks for the personal attack. Elliot (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
No, wiki sites use MediaWiki as a backbone, not Wikipedia. Taking material from Wikipedia and causing strife is all you do, and that was my point. I tried to find a contribution of yours that wasn't part of an argument, something taken from Wikipedia or a removal of other editors' work but gave up after the third page. I say again... compare that to rpeh and learn from the difference. 19:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
You sure do know a lot for being a "friend of rpeh's". I have no intentions or need to answer to an IP. Elliot (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I agree with Timmeh: Censorship will only cover up the problem; it won't resolve the issue. --Michaeldsuarez (Talk) (Deeds) 01:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    It won't be truly resolved. Ever. Elliot (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose: I think you should just let them do anything they want as long as it is just between the two of them. And as Michaeldsuarez says abouve censorship wont do anything Arny 09:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Consensus: Oppose. There was, however, general support for a permanent change in policy rather than a one-time interaction ban. Robin Hoodtalk 03:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Timmeh's Alternative Proposal

We could just give them a month to shape up or get out, with the punishment for not doing so is a 3 month block or something. It's not the nicest option, but honestly it's gotten to the point where a block for either/both of them may be better for the wiki in the long term. If I were to see them not at each others throats for a month, maybe my opinion might change. --Tim Talk 03:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

* Neutral. The bottom line, is that at this point I'm in favor of just about anything that changes the status quo. So, if the rest of the community supports Timmeh's proposal, I'll support it, too.
However, I'm not outright voting in support of the idea because I personally don't think the proposal is workable. In every one of these incidents each of the editors blames the other one for provoking the situation. For the sake of argument, let's say that rpeh is right and Elliot is provoking rpeh. Timmeh's proposal implies that if Elliot places another warning on rpeh's talk page, both Elliot and rpeh will end up being blocked for three months -- so the site loses a valuable contributor for three months solely because another editor provoked a situation. Someone might respond that in that situation it was obvious Elliot was in the wrong and therefore only Elliot should be blocked -- but none of the past situations have been obvious, so I don't think any future ones will be. In other words, we'll either end up with another confused mess and do nothing, or else we'll impose blocks on both and both will complain that they're the victim. --NepheleTalk 20:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Being excessively blunt is not going to solve anything. Mediation is better than aggravation. Elliot (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose This is too harsh maybe a 3 day block? --Arny 09:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: It's not worth much at this point, but I'm a strong supporter of the simple-but-effective approach. I find this satisfies that. Robin Hoodtalk 03:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Consensus: None. Votes were even (based on an assumption of support from Timmeh himself). In the absence of consensus, existing policy stands. Robin Hoodtalk 03:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Modification to Original Proposal

In response to the above feedback, I've posted the proposed text for a new, more general policy at User:Nephele/Sandbox/6.

I'm guessing the most likely issue with the new text is whether it's sufficient to have two administrators agree. So I've highlighted that phrase in green as a semi-placeholder. Basically, I think that for it to be useful as an official policy, it has to be possible to enact the policy without a full community consensus -- otherwise we're effectively re-introducing the policy every time we try to use it, which defeats the purpose of creating a general policy in the first place. Two administrators seemed like a reasonable minimum requirement. However, that requirement can easily be changed without invalidating the rest of the proposal, so if the primary issue is that requirement, could we still get consensus on the rest of the text, and then spend more time refining the details?

I think that what I've posted is about as general as we can get and yet still have a policy that will help in the current situation. The fundamental problem here, as I see it, is that the Elliot-rpeh incidents always start with actions that are acceptable under wiki rules. That's basically why it's been so hard to take action in any of the past incidents. Any type of general solution, that affects all editors, will either be too vague to make a difference or else will prevent other editors from making necessary edits. Imagine, for example, trying to come up with a specific, enforceable set of rules about when it is acceptable to undo another editor's edit -- for any rule you could come up with a dozen exceptions when the rule should be broken. In normal situations, we need to give editors some latitude to judge what is best.

As a result, I think any proposal to deal with this situation has to acknowledge that it is not typical -- it has to place restrictions solely on Elliot and/or rpeh that do not apply to other editors. If we want to stop the incidents, we need some non-subjective way to say "this edit is going to provoke an incident" -- only then we can say the edit isn't allowed, and take action if someone breaks the rule. The most obvious way to identify a problematic edit is "if this edit involves both Elliot and rpeh".

My primary objective with this proposal is to find some way to make the next incident not be a repeat of the last few dozen incidents -- I'm not hoping for a universal solution. If I'm correctly understanding what's been said so far, everybody agrees that there is a problem here, and everyone agrees that the problem is likely to happen again unless something is done. But at the moment, nothing really has changed, and as long as that's the case I can't help but assume that this will keep happening over and over again. If anyone thinks that further policy changes, for example, to the Etiquette page would be helpful, those suggestions can still be brought forward. Or if a future proposal makes this non-interaction restriction obsolete, we can revoke it. But we need to start somewhere.

--NepheleTalk 20:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of Modification

To help us make some forward progress, could contributors explicitly state their opinions on the following points:

  1. Overall: Do you support/oppose the overall intent of the proposed policy?
  2. Requirements: Do you support/oppose the specific requirements necessary before this policy can be enacted, in other words, is it enough for two administrators to agree that a pair of editors need this restriction? If not, what is the minimum requirement that you think should be necessary?
  3. Apply now: Do you support/oppose applying this policy to rpeh and Elliot?

I think that increases the chances of being able to get this policy in place to handle our one current situation, after which we can spend more time refining the details of when/how it might next be needed.

* Overall: Support. Requirements: Support. Apply now: Support. As proposer --NepheleTalk 20:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Overall: Support. Requirements: Support. Apply now: Support. It may need some tweaking over time, but it's a good base for a general proposal that will handle both the current and any future situations like this. Robin HoodTalk 20:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Overall: Neutral. Requirements:Support. Apply now: Oppose. For a general rule, 1 week might not be bad (depending on what stage the rule is enforced). But for Rpeh and Elliot, the punishment needs to be way more strong than a one week block. Elliot has made personal attacks on Core in PM on IRC, twice. These PM's are free for everyone to see. Even if you ignore all of his other actions (which isn't a shining example of how to edit the wiki) he should have already have a block of at least a month, even if it isn't sanctioned by the rules, because it is a personal attack against one of our editors in response to actions on the wiki. The entire community should be ashamed that it hasn't done anything in response. Furthermore, Rpeh's behavior and Rpeh's contributions need to be separated in our minds. I cannot deny that his contributions are valuable, but his continued attitude with dealing with other editors (not just Elliot) is a cause for concern. He shares a great deal of blame for the current situation we are in, even if he hasn't done as much of the harm. Furthermore, a block of a week is called a vacation. There are very few circumstances where blocking someone for a week is anything more than a slap on the wrist and doesn't even reach close to being a deterrence for this kind of behavior. Furthermore, it isn't fair when compared to other punishments. At the very least, a one month block should be in place, with continued "Tape over the mouth" for a month after the block is done. --Tim Talk 21:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Addendum: Also, there is no reason to officially warn them if they break the rule. This is the warning. If it's gotten to the point where we have to invoke this rule, then they know already. --Tim Talk 21:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Another Addendum: I'm saying that if we need to use this rule on Rpeh and Elliot, that there be no official warning before we block them. We post that they're now restricted by this rule, and then we block them if they break it. But, as Krusty said, we shouldn't put them under this rule as soon as we've reached consensus, which is what I assume is meant by "Apply Now". We should see how they act after Elliot's current block is done, and if it is necessary to invoke this rule, then lay it on them. --Tim Talk 20:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Overall: Oppose. Requirements: Oppose. Apply now: Oppose. Almost everybody acknowledges that the current situation is the fault of one user more than the other and this attempt to tar both users with the same brush is a massive injustice. Elliot has personally attacked several users and has hidden behind the letter of the law rather than its spirit. On Wikipedia he would have received a lengthy block long ago for his actions, and did indeed receive a week-long block for his similar behavior there. Since this policy is being based on Wikipedia's own version, the same standard should apply. I'm well aware that I have pushed the boundaries during my interactions with Elliot but I'm afraid it has become necessary. Almost the entire administration team has been absent recently for various reasons (I do not wish to imply any criticism here - we all have lives off-wiki) and Elliot has been left to attack, disparage and harass other users to his heart's content. It is left to the rest of us to do whatever we can to limit Elliot's effect on the site. In my case, this has taken the form of removing him from IRC when he was present to do nothing other than argue (an action for which nobody except Elliot had anything other than praise) and try to stop responses to Elliot when it has become clear that he is more interested in the argument than in the outcome.
I have already agreed to stop interacting with Elliot in an email to another administrator. If Nephele had consulted her fellow admins, who are in far better possession of the facts in this matter than she is, she would have known this. This policy is unnecessary, too wide in scope, and generally unhelpful. I oppose it strongly. rpeh •TCE 22:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Overall: Support. Requirements: Support. Apply now: Support. I am not going to reason with some sanctimonious bullshit and finger pointing that others users happen to employ on a regular basis. I also won't try a pathetic move by trying to discredit the other editors in order to further my own argument. I also won't try to qualify it by saying it was necessary, when none of our actions have been necessary (calling an established editor a troll over 20 times, referring to trolling in IRC the moment they enter, is definitely not necessary). I was against it at first, but Nephele has managed to write a good version of such policy. Elliot (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I think that Elliot is more responsible for these fights than rpeh he seems to be always looking for a fight and is always fighting users (rpeh, half life) so I think a 1 week block for Elliot should settle things down Arny 09:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    You clearly don't understand the situation. Please explain in great detail how I initiated any sort of fight (especially with HalfLife). If you cannot base your comments on facts and understanding of the situation or common sense, then you should keep out of such debates. Elliot (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    This, this. Even though you dont always start the fight you always aggrevate it Arny 10:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    Actually Elliot should already have been blocked as the UESPWiki Etiquette policy states Arny 10:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Overall: Support. Requirements: Support. Apply now: Strong Oppose. I think the new policy is well written and the requirements are fine. I know that I am sick and tired of waking up to yet another nights’ bickering, name-calling and fighting on the AN (and so is the entire community) and it feels good to be able to hand out the appropriate warning before it escalates. It saddens me a great deal that we have to make a policy like this, but it seems necessary these days. But I hate the very thought about applying this new rule to Rpeh and Elliot now. It feels forced, it feels half-baked and rushed and very unfair, especially to those of us who knows the background story and have followed the feud closely for months. Timmeh wrote earlier: "This is the warning. If it's gotten to the point where we have to invoke this rule, then they know already." That sums it up. We can’t invent spontaneous policies to stop an on-going problem without at least giving the editors in question a chance to change their behavior. It just feels wrong and I sincerely hope that this rushed decision gets the Oppose stamp. --Krusty 09:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    Krusty (and Timmeh), could you possibly clarify what you do think is appropriate for rpeh and Elliot? (Although with Elliot's block it's possibly now somewhat moot, on the other hand, a week from now we're back to the status quo, and I still think it would be prudent to have some restrictions in place.) I'm particularly confused because I understood Timmeh's comment to mean that we should essentially accelerate the restrictions -- apply them, but skip straight to a block for the first violation. So I don't see how that leads to the conclusion that no restrictions should be applied. Therefore, do you think no restrictions should ever placed on rpeh and Elliot? Or else under what conditions do you think the restrictions might be appropriate (e.g., how long after the policy is put in place)? In other words, if the general policy is put in place, I think it would help the other admins to understand your concerns, so that we know whether two of us can decide restrictions are necessary (in particular, if you're not around at the time). --NepheleTalk 19:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    Can I just point out here that I've steered clear of Elliot since I was asked to do so by Timenn? There has been plenty of drama over the last couple of days, but it hasn't come from me. rpeh •TCE 20:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    I will try to clarify, even if recent events have made it somewhat unnecessary. I do not think it is fair to invent a policy in the middle of an existing feud and hand out spontaneous warnings. The editors in question should at least be given the chance to think about the policy and improve their behavior before we start to block them. I’m all for the new policy but it is simply wrong to activate it right away, with such short notice. Even if Elliot took a block today, I think we should calm down, get the policy written and see what happens. I do not think we should apply the new rules to Rpeh or Elliot before we are sure that they will continue fighting. I know these arguments may sound a bit meaningless with Elliot gone and all, but that is my stance – I’m fairly sure that Rpeh will remain silent and ignore Elliot in the future, mostly because the feud seems to be over after today – but also because of this new policy. So: Let’s take a deep breath, get the policy going without any further action taken against Elliot or Rpeh – and cross our fingers for a more peaceful and friendly environment around here in the future. --Krusty 21:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Overall: Neutral, Requirements: Neutral, Apply Now: Neutral – The intent of the policy, which is to put a halt to not-so-civil behavior created by personal disputes, is something that I support. I also know that blocks are sometimes necessary to such stop disputes. When I was in conflict with User:HMSVictory over 2 years ago, the dispute became so bad that both of us were blocked (by rpeh in a twist of fate). When we were blocked and couldn't edit any longer, we were given time to cool down and think. Nevertheless, the block that settled the conflict was only 15 minutes long. The proposal advocates a 1-week block, but an entire week may not be necessary, hence my neutrality on the Requirements. Of course, this is a special case. The dispute between rpeh and Elliot has disputed the community here (mostly in edit wars, edit summaries, and by derailing community discussions), and the dispute has been an extremely long one. rpeh was blocked for 2 weeks before, and Elliot was blocked for a week on Wikipedia, so a one-week block may not be that effective on them. It would have to be a month-long block. Since "helpful" blocks for cooling-down can range from 1 minute to a month, I believe that the block duration should be flexible rather than set in stone. As someone formerly blocked in order to end a conflict, I hope that you respect my opinion. --Michaeldsuarez (Talk) (Deeds) 13:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    How does my WP behavior have any bearing on this matter? Elliot (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    I'm just saying that you already know what a week-long block feels like, so it may not be effective in ending the arguing here. As Timmeh has stated, a block of a week is called a vacation. --Michaeldsuarez (Talk) (Deeds) 14:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    MDS makes a very good point here: I think a flexible block time based on the admin's judgement of what would be effective in a given situation is probably the better way to go. Robin HoodTalk 15:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    I'm fine with a flexible block time. The one-week was primarily inspired by Wikipedia. But I also wanted to make it clear that, unlike vandalism blocks, I don't think a second block should automatically be a permanent block. In the case of vandals, we're blocking people who have shown no potential to contribute productively to the site (and even if they did have a change of heart, they'd be better off starting with a new account). In this case, we're blocking editors who have made constructive edits, and therefore shouldn't necessarily be blocked permanently because of a disagreement with another editor. But leaving it up to the admin's judgement is probably the best way to figure out what is right in the specific circumstances. --NepheleTalk 19:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

*Overall: Support, Requirements: Oppose, Apply Now: Oppose There should definitely be a flexible block time; also if Editor A edits User B's talk page constructively that shouldn't cause problems. As for Apply Now I Oppose per Krusty.--TheAlbinoOrc 18:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Just to be clear, if the block time is made to be flexible, does that satisfy your concerns about the requirements?
    As for Editor A editing Editor B's talk page, I'm sorry, but I don't agree that it should be allowed in this particular situation. The restriction is for unusual situations, where I don't think it's safe to assume that Editor B will agree that the edit is constructive. In the case of vandalism or some other problem on Editor B's talk page, there are numerous people other than Editor A who can deal with the situation, without the risk of the edit being misinterpreted. --NepheleTalk 19:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Overall: Support, Requirements: Support, Apply Now: Support Oppose In light of relevant recent events (specifically me responding to Elliot and his response) I support this. Please see my response to Elliot below.--TheAlbinoOrcGot_a_question? 18:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
    You do realize that I can ask for a user to stay off of my page right? Your change of vote in retaliation to that and my own change of vote, should be removed. Elliot (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
    I accept that you can ask for any user or group of users to stay off your page. However you asked for users to learn what was going on. I responded that I did know what was going on. I felt that you overreacted. But you're right (at least about the apply now part of my change of vote. I haven't seen your vote change yet though so I'm not sure about it ). Also I left the rest because I support the principle of being evenhanded and feel that for resolving other disputes (or any continuation of this one) the proposal is useful.--TheAlbinoOrcGot_a_question? 19:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
    Elliot - Albino can change his vote if he so pleases, and you are in no position to tell him his vote should be deleted. There is absolutely no reason to remove either of your votes, unless you wish to remove your own and abstain from further helpful comments. --SerCenKing Talk 21:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Consensus: Support.
Consensus: Support.
Apply Now:
Consensus: None. In the end, this weighed slightly in favor of Oppose, but not enough to call it a clear Oppose consensus.
Consensus: Support. I interpret the above to mean that the policy is good and should be put into place. However, there is ambiguity as to whether this should be immediately enforced in regards to Elliot and rpeh. As such, no immediate action should be taken against either party, however any future interaction concerns between the two would fall under the new policy. Robin Hoodtalk 04:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)