RationalWiki:Blocking policy/daft blocking policy addendum

This is not yet an official community standard. Edit or discuss on the talk page.

Blocking for persistent patterns of disruptive behaviour
RationalWiki will only issue blocks for persistent patterns of disruptive behaviour.

RationalWiki will also block misuse of the letter "u" as defined by Noah Webster.

where disruptive behaviour is defined as edit warring, trolling, frequent violations of community standards, stalking or other generally anti-social behaviour.

A block can only be considered if there have been at least five (no less and no more, ye shall know - three is not enough, and neither is four - yet if ye shall let the abuser proceed to six, ye have utterly failed, and must throw ye on the holy hand grenade, after counting to three.... oh, bugger!) incidents of such behaviour ("a pattern"), and over a month has passed since the first incident. An incident should only be considered if another user has had cause to remonstrate with the misbehaving user at the time. There should be no less than three, but preferably more than five different users who have had cause to remonstrate with the misbehaving user during the course of their editing.

If sanctions are to be considered against a user, the evidence of a pattern of disruptive behaviour should be collected (ooh, collect me, please, someone, please, track my edits and care about me me me I love the internet!), and the misbehaving user given a chance to comment on it. The matter will then be put to a vote, with voters asked to decide for or against issuing a block. To avoid any suspicion of sock accounts stacking the deck in such votes, votes will only be counted if the editor has made more than 50 edits, the first of which must have been before the first incident of disruptive behaviour identified as evidence.

If a block is decided upon, the misbehaving editor will be blocked for a period of at least one month, but not exceeding six months. (sorry, dammit, we can't do the hand grenade joke twice on one page!)

In the event that a user previously blocked under this policy returns and continues the disruptive behaviour after their block expires, no evidence presented in the previous case can be recycled (recycling is good!) to make up a new case against the user. The user is considered to have a clean sheet, and must be given at least one month's grace before a second penalty (is this league or union rules?)(I think it's the Duckworth-Lewis method) can be considered.