|This is debate, not an article. Feel free to contribute to the argument. Opinions are welcome from all sides, but one should keep the discussion civilized. Don't forget to sign your opinions by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end.|
Conservapedia often employs year-long or even infinite user blocks even for the smallest of violations. For example, one can get labeled a "troll" and get infinitely blocked just for making 5 discussion edits, all of them intelligently discussing the topics in question.
On the now-defunct Liberapedia forums, there was a following message:
Hello, I am a conservative American! What I am about to tell you, I hope, will not offend you in any possible way. I just got banned two times on Conservapedia; the first ban lasted for a very short time, like a few hours, and the second ban lasts this month...in the year 2015! It seems that Conservapedia's ban limit per mistake/violation is absurd and totally outrageous. What is your ban limit per mistake/violation if I might ask? Obi-Wan Kenobody 08:03, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
The question is: are such block periods adequate for a publicly-edited wiki?
Yes, they areEdit
For grossly offensive edits like death threats very long blocks, even infinite blocks are a good thing and may be needed after the first post.
No, they aren'tEdit
Only for repeated vandalism or spam editsEdit
There are no perfect administrators. Even if someone thinks the editor may be a troll or a vandal, it could have just as well been a misguided user or someone who poorly understands what a wiki is. Wikipedia even has a policy called "assume good faith", that is -- if an edit looks
and quacks like a vandal edit, one shouldn't always think it is one. On the other hand, if the user continuously repeats the same actions, they may deserve a limited block -- around a month or so. Andrew Small (talk) 07:51, February 17, 2013 (UTC)