Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,714
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 18:
Line 18: + + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia:Blocking policy (view source)
Revision as of 11:09, November 29, 2021
, 11:09, November 29, 2021→Blockable offenses
* '''Inappropriate user name'''. <!--It has been a ''general'' principle that one's user name be "based on one's real first name and last initial", though there are a number of reasons why that is not always practical. The point is that we don't like the kind of foolish "handles" that are often used in various blogs and social web sites. If you run afoul of this by accident, you will be asked to create a new account, and doing so will not be considered sockpuppetry. Of course, some user names are essentially just vandalism, and are treated that way.-->Profane, vile, and disgusting usernames, or other types of offensive, objectionable, or nonsensical usernames will be blocked.
* '''Inappropriate user name'''. <!--It has been a ''general'' principle that one's user name be "based on one's real first name and last initial", though there are a number of reasons why that is not always practical. The point is that we don't like the kind of foolish "handles" that are often used in various blogs and social web sites. If you run afoul of this by accident, you will be asked to create a new account, and doing so will not be considered sockpuppetry. Of course, some user names are essentially just vandalism, and are treated that way.-->Profane, vile, and disgusting usernames, or other types of offensive, objectionable, or nonsensical usernames will be blocked.
* '''90/10 rule violation'''. This rule is unique to Conservapedia. The objective is to avoid repetitive arguments. While an actual numerical check could be used, the usual application of the rule at present is a more subjective analysis of whether one is here just for engaging in combat. Remember, Conservapedia is a [[meritocracy]], and an editor's contributions to mainspace weigh in the balance more in granting [[Conservapedia:User rights|user rights]] than occuping other editors time in fruitless talk page discussion.
* '''90/10 rule violation'''. This rule is unique to Conservapedia. The objective is to avoid repetitive arguments. While an actual numerical check could be used, the usual application of the rule at present is a more subjective analysis of whether one is here just for engaging in combat. Remember, Conservapedia is a [[meritocracy]], and an editor's contributions to mainspace weigh in the balance more in granting [[Conservapedia:User rights|user rights]] than occuping other editors time in fruitless talk page discussion.
== Conservapedia has come up with a key wiki metric - the edits to blocked editor accounts ratio which measures the close-mindedness/intolerance and groupthink of a wiki. ==
[[Conservapedia]] has come up with a key [[wiki]] metric - the edits to blocked editor accounts ratio at a wiki which measures the close-mindedness/intolerance and [[groupthink]] of a wiki.
Mathematically, the edits to blocked editor accounts ratio at a wiki can be expressed as: Edits to blocked editor accounts ratio at a wiki = E % BE, where E is the number of edits to the wiki and BE equals the number of blocked editor accounts of the wiki.
The edits to blocked editor accounts ratio was partly inspired by [[Andrew Schlafly]]'s essay Quantifying Openmindedness.
There is a politically [[leftism|left]] leaning [[wiki]] website that skews towards [[atheism]]/[[agnosticism]] in terms of its [[worldview]] that does very poorly on the edits to blocked editor accounts ratio (see: [[Essay: RationalWiki: The wiki with the world's lowest edits to blocked editors ratio (which measures intolerance)|RationalWiki: The wiki with the world's lowest edits to blocked editors ratio (which measures intolerance)]]. Unlike Conservapedia, RationalWiki does not have a policy where members of the public are free to set up debate pages and engage in vigorous debate where the debate pages are lightly moderated (see: [https://conservapedia.com/Category:Conservapedia_Debates Conservapedia debates pages]).
==See also==
==See also==