View source for Debate:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?

{{debate}}

==Yes==

If im to be asked, i have seen few pretty questionable bans, but i can now remember only two specific ones that fit the queastion. Those are the bans of Catwatcher and Jacobin when editing article Deceit. Both where banned for 3 days, if i remember correctly. Jacobin  for deleting the uncited claim that liberalists dont teach that deceit is wrong and Catwathcher from adding {{fact}} to the claims in the article. Didn't know where to search for the logs anymore, but if anyone can find those and provide more about the reason of the bans, please feel free.

Furthermore i think the 90%/10% rule is used here mostly to shut up the people presenting inconvient questions or atleast scare them to be quiet. and i think examples from that are plenty. Most reasent in my opinnion is Mr. Aschlafly:s response to Hacker at his talk page regarding the series of questions Hacker made. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 10:00, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

My Evidence (for what it's worth): 

See [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Deceit&diff=119239&oldid=119227| this edit]] to which the response was:

:"Catwatcher, you've been warned before. This time I see that defaced my entry on deceit. This is not Wikipedia. Ideological, unjustified edits like that will result in blocking your account.--Aschlafly 17:58, 20 April 2007 (EDT) "

and [[User talk:Aschlafly#Response_to_accusations_of_ideology | and my reply]] which resulted in a three day ban. The ban was ostensibly for "sarcasm", the reason being that I claimed not to know any liberals. Actually this is true. I live in Britain, and we do not have the same liberal/conservative split which seems to underpin this wiki (in fact its hard to tell these days who is on what side of the political divide!) We have Liberal Democrats, who are a different kind of liberal, and not the same as U.S. liberals. I was actually doing what I usually do in debate, that is playing [[devil's advocate]], and I did not deserve a ban, much less a threat to have my account blocked. I did not get a chance to say any of the above, as the ban was imposed with immediate effect.  In Britain, if such behaviour occurred in the workplace or school, we would call it bullying. That statement will now probably get me another ban or, more probably, a block; but there you go, that's conservapedia --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:08, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

One can be banned on this site merely for asking a question.  A few days ago, there was a new user on the site named “Thammersmith” or something like that.   He claimed to be a student at Liberty University and the powers that be at Conservapedia were considering him making him a Sysop.  Aschlafly discovered that “Thammersmith” (or something like that) was actually at the U of Wisconsin, Madison, and commented that the student could expect a visit from campus security.  I merely asked “why do you think that UW Madison campus security will do anything? He did nothing illegal, nor anything that had an adverse affect on the campus community.”  Within 30 minutes, without giving me a reason, my account was blocked, and my question deleted.  So, for asking a simple question, one can find themselves kicked off this site. 1048247

#"Asking a simple question" is not the same as "pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements".
#That comment was not a "simple question". It contained an assertion that faking one's identity is not illegal. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:08, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::But is it illegal on this site? That doesn't make sense. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:11, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

I noted that "Thammersmiths" (or whatever his name was) act was not illegal. I was surpirsed that Conservapedia seemed to think that UWM would do anything about it. I work on a university campus, and thought that odd.--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 14:21, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:Making up an online idenity is not illegal.  I do believe however making threats against someone is. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:34, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Right. And "Thammersmith" did not threaten anyone--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 17:15, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:Sorry ... didn't mean to imply he did, I was referring to the threat of a visit from campus security. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 17:27, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

No Problem. I thought the notion that campus security would visit the student strange, and perhaps, if one wanted to view it this way, it could be considered a form of cyber-bullying.--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 17:32, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:It was fairly clear that [[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] was blocked for questioning accuracy and verifiability. Of course some other excuse was given. I couldn't find it in the rules though. I was threatened with the 90/10 [[rule]] for inquiring about it. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=127442&oldid=127424]
:[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 17:14, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::It seems to be a common practice among some sysops, see [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGeo.plrd&diff=122364&oldid=122360 here].
::[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 06:52, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==No==

I'm a refugee from Wikipedia, and 
I've been at Conservapedia for five weeks. After a mere six days, I was made a sysop. I have worked closely with TK to manage (quell?) a lot of the senseless clamoring about alleged systemic bias here.

As far as I know, not a single person has ever been "blocked" for expressing disagreement with a conservative position. Conservapedia welcomes opposing views.

However, mean-spirited attacks on people or their beliefs are not tolerated. I have asked critics to tone down their rhetoric. I have used the {{tl|remove personal remark}} template to encourage clean debate. I have spent countless hours emailing and instant messaging, begging people to be nice. 

When users refuse to follow the civility guidelines, they must be excluded from the discussion - at least temporarily. I disagree here with our project director Mr. Schlafly on the length of user blocks. When people act like kids, I think we should treat them like kids and give them a "time out". 

Both Mr. Schlafly and TK have taken me to task more than once, because I have been too kind and accommodating. It's just the way I am: I have taught Sunday School and am training Sunday School teachers. The bishop of my church says, "You can't make people change." You can count on the fingers of one hand the users whom I have "blocked" but who have chosen to make a turnaround (like St. Paul?) and adhere to the rules of this web site.

I hope that contributors will be polite at all times. I also hope that contributors will describe views which run counter to U.S. conservatism, but that they will do so in accordance with the guidelines established by this site. 

Please see [[:Conservapedia:Guidelines]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:01, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:''As far as I know, not a single person has ever been "blocked" for expressing disagreement with a conservative position. Conservapedia welcomes opposing views.'' Honestly, mr. Poor, have you seen the history of the [[Deceit]] page? Were the blockings of Jacobin, Catwatcher and AmesG at all unrelated to them removing or adding "{{fact}}" to the unsubstantiated claims made in that article? Or am I entirely mistaken here? --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 15:56, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Golly, I'm pinned down behind enemy lines and taking fire. Now what'll I do? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:26, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Change sides, its fun here on the dark liberal side ;) [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 17:38, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Don't shoot back because tracers work both ways. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 17:40, 24 April 2007 (EDT)