Conservapedia:Blocking policy

Conservapedia is an open wiki that does not allow liberal censorship, or trolling. Although we assume good faith as a matter of principle, some people would abuse this trust. For those editors who violate its rules, sysops have the ability to issue temporary or longer term blocks on their accounts to protect the integrity of the site.

Vandals and parodists are blocked immediately, but other blocks are given for a period of reflection and with the hope that the user being blocked may be able to return and edit in a positive way once the time has passed. The ultimate purpose of blocking is behavior modification, not vindictiveness, and should be carried out in an escalatory manner with appropriate warnings to encourage the blockee to change their manner and approach to editing.

Conservapedia administrators and Conservapedia editors with blocking rights (blocking sysops) are not to engage in heavy-handed blocking or capricious blocking. If an editor is blocked by a Conservapedia administrator or sysop assistant, it should be done in a fair-minded and judicious manner. Blocking sysops may not override actions of Senior Administrators without consultation. Wiki editors at Conservapedia are volunteers. Their volunteering spirit should be respected.

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.

Unlike Conservapedia, Wikipedia 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: Conservapedia debates pages). Conservapedia debate pages are lightly moderated and can be freely set up and/or participated in by members of the general public who behave in a civil manner.

Topic bans and main page talk bans

If an editor has a problem with the quality edits in a particular area(s), he may incur a topic ban. Please see: Conservapedia:Topic bans.

Blockable offenses

Here are the actions which can get one's account blocked. The block comment should state clearly what the reason was.

• Vandalism. True vandalism is easy to spot and is utterly unmistakable. A glance at "recent changes" will often show someone creating an account and then going through as many pages as possible (until someone stops them) doing things like blanking the page, changing it to 100 repetitions of some crude anatomical reference, etc. The tolerance for this is absolutely zero. Such a person will be blocked with no possibility of appeal.
• Parody. This is often easy to spot, but sometimes not. Obvious cases involve altering an article in such a way as to make the article an object of ridicule. It is sometimes done for ideological reasons, and sometimes for one's "15 minutes of fame"—there is an allure to the idea of typing something at one's computer that the whole world will see, an allure that sometimes affects people totally lacking in common sense. Vandalism and parody are problems for all wikis. Clear parody is treated the same as vandalism. Other cases are harder to judge, and may require serious editorial intervention.
• Trolling. Disruptive activity.
• Edit warring. When people disagree on content, they should try to work out their differences on the talk page. Just reverting each other's changes repeatedly does no good, and can lead to a temporary block if it distracts people from doing real work.
• Incivility. We do not look kindly on personal insults directed at other contributors. You should be able to disagree on content without being personally insulting.
• Intimidating behaviour/harassment. Personal remarks can sometime get very serious. When they do, the consequences can also get serious.
• Removing content from article pages without discussion. We take a dim view of the plain removal of information; it smacks of censorship. Try to find a way of incorporating the other person's viewpoint into the article. When necessary, discuss on the talk page.
• Inserting false information.
• Inserting nonsense/gibberish into pages.
• Spam. Spamming links to external sites is a problem on many wikis. Some people view a wiki as just a vehicle for self promotion and increasing the visibility of their own external web site, whether it be hawking crackpot scientific theories, herbal supplements, or whatever. It is strictly forbidden. Wholesale cutting and pasting mainspace and talk pages within Conservapedia that include category links and other users' electronic signatures can also be considered spamming. Reposting another user's electronic signature is a blockable offense.
• Sockpuppetry. We do not allow use of multiple accounts for the purpose of evading blocks or making one's point of view appear to be more widely held than it is. There are mechanisms for appealing blocks, involving email or requests on the blocking sysop's talk page.
• Inappropriate user name. 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 user rights than occuping other editors time in fruitless talk page discussion.

Conservapedia policy on civility

See also Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks

• You must be civil. No bullying. Incivility and personal attacks should be replaced with the {{personal remark removed}} template. Conservapedia Administrators as well need to interact with others according to the same standards of civility we ask of editors.
• For content disputes, be reasonable and make every effort to use an article's talk page to have a cordial and constructive dialogue. Stick to the facts in content disputes and back up your facts with a source or sources. If you are proposing alternative content in a content dispute, it must be sourced. Do not engage in personal attacks. Avoid bringing up irrelevant past disputes with editors and stick to the content dispute at hand. If you have a content dispute with another editor, do not immediately post to the other editor's personal talk page. The article talk pages is where the vast majority of discussion should take place. Avoid unnecessary content disputes by sourcing your article content.
• Your user page/discussion pages, are indeed your castle, from which you can agree, disagree and discuss issues as you will. However you cannot use them to bully, ridicule (make fun of) or attack (denigrate) Conservapedia or other users, and their opinions. Users are free to remove comments from their own user talk pages.
• There is a difference between intellectual discourse, and attacking someone for what they believe. Wikipedia condones bullying and mob rule, we don’t.
• Violators of the CP Guidelines will be blocked.

Inappropriate/trolling behavior: Examples

See also: Conservapedia:Inappropriate/trolling behavior - Examples

Trolling can constitute any one or more of the following behaviours:

• Monopolizing discussions by repeatedly talking more than the other side despite saying little to nothing relevant/coherent:
• Responding to reasonable requests and questions with off-topic or potentially offensive rhetoric;
• Posting outrageous comments to bait people; or
• Employing redundant arguments intended to occupy and waste the time, efforts, or energies of other users or to distract them from productive editing and making mainspace article contributions.
• Flaming or flame wars; posting user disputes over multiple pages.
• Intentionally engaging in behavior designed to irritate others
• Engaging in doxxing. Doxxing is the criminal practice of releasing private or sensitive information about someone online for the purposes of harassment, intimidation and/or malicious intent.
• A user that spends 90% of their editing time and activity making redundant arguments, complaining, harassing and/or impeding other editors productive activity.

Many trolls are attention seekers, or they just enjoy annoying people. Some however, have a direct purpose or agenda -- to destroy the Conservapedia project and limit its ability to build an internet community. They do so by inconveniencing and harassing users. Trolling is a blockable offense. However, blocking the troll does not always solve the problem; determined trolls can continue their activity through blocking appeals and sockpuppetry. Some trolls have been known to persist for several years.

Dealing with longterm abusive editors can be problematic. Blocking them does not make them go away; they can return angrier and more determined to attack and harass a specific user, or article pages.

See also

• Conservapedia:Checkuser