Thread:LucidPigeons/@comment-961279-20150815162710/@comment-961279-20150815231947

"Abuse of the 'antagonistic scale'" is another way to describe what I am talking about, and it is a type of edit war. I already have a policy for my wikis that you're free to use as is or modify for your needs. Here's the list of what I came up with:
 * Antagonist fussing policy - the policy with block durations for infractions.
 * No more antagonist fussing - the blog where I announced it.
 * My analysis of over 2,200 edits, which revealed 161 different ways to describe Randall Boggs as an antagonist, the contradictions, indicisions and edit wars.
 * A more detailed explanation of the ten reasons why it's being prohibited.
 * The actual examples of the 161 different ways to describe Randall as an antagonist plus about a dozen others for other characters.
 * The definitions that show how the descriptions are being misused.
 * Three examples of what antagonist fussing would look like outside of a wiki in the real world.

I took the time to do the research to see if it was just me who was having a problem with this. I haven't seen any benefit to it and do see a lot of negatives, but just in case it somehow is a benefit, I put in a section at the bottom of the analysis page that says "if you can come up with a better reason than me, I'll listen, and meanwhile, here's almost 23,000 edits you can look through to do your own research".

Jeff Meredith's reaction to your warning today is another indication of why a policy is necessary. That's the same reaction he had when I also warned him about his behavior last month, pretty close to word-for-word, and he tried to make the same claim that continually changing his mind, contradicting himself and making statements that there are "plots" and "campaigns" was some kind of "vision" that he wasn't being respected for. Unfortunately, the more I look at it, the more it's a case of trying to justify poor behavior. I haven't seen any instances where he "tried and tried" to present his side as being a benefit to the wiki. There weren't many times where the edit summary for one of his edits gave a reason why he put something in.

To wrap this up, obviously, I'm encouraging both of you to make this a policy here. If you're having to lock down a lot of pages to the sysop protection level because of squabbling and fighting, that doesn't help this wiki grow. And all of us have better things to do than to lose almost 40% of the edits on a wiki to that squabbling and fighting.