1.1. The WCPG were developed by pieterh and the Wikidot Community administrators (the "Tribal Council") as a way of protecting discussions from disruptive behavior. These guidelines explain how to avoid conflict and misunderstanding, and set out a number of steps that site admins can take to intervene when users violate the WCPG.
2.1. The admins of any site can choose to apply the WCPG to the forums of that site. The WCPG cover all types of forum: Forum module, per-page comments, and other types of forum. "Post" means any kind of content: page edits, image uploads, tags, comments, etc. Site admins will inform their users that the WCPG apply, using the WCPG logo and a link to this page.
The WCPG treats the following types of activity as "seriously disruptive":
4.1. The WCPG are not formal rules but guidelines that help contributors, and help site admins intervene when they feel there is a thread that has gotten out of control due to posters ignoring the guidelines or when they feel there is a risk of this happening due to seriously disruptive behavior. In many cases, posts may violate the WCPG without harm. It is up to admins to judge when to intervene.
5.1. When/if you are temporarily or permanently banned, you can complain at the Community forum. The Community admins (the "tribal council") acts as a soft authority in case of all disputes between site admins and users. However, note that site admins are under no obligation to undo a ban.
6.1. Under the WCPG, offending posts are never deleted (spam, inappropriate content and other posts that violate the Wikidot Terms of Service may be deleted independently of the WCPG). All permanent bans are announced as replies to the specific post(s) that caused the permanent bans.
7.1. When a site admin is himself or herself directly involved in discussions that violate the WCPG, that admin may not affect a temporary or permanent ban. Another admin must take responsibility for this.
8.1. There's a discussion between some people, and two users are getting heated, and writing long comments filled with detailed argumentation. The thread host feels that the discussion is "rabbit holed", i.e. stuck in useless detail, and asks the users to keep their comments shorter, to the point, and to give others a chance to reply. The posters tell the thread host to shut up. The thread host then invokes the WCPG and temporarily bans the two posters. Sanity returns to the thread.
8.2. Several users are complaining about the signature of one user, which is promoting a political ideology. The site admin asks the user to change his signature. The user refuses, and the site admin then looks at the users' contributions and decides they are not worth the fuss. He temporarily bans the user, and later, permanently bans him. He complains about censorship and tells other people to avoid that site but the admin points to the WCPG and people feel it was fair.
8.3. There's a user who keeps jumping into threads with confusing, complex, and slightly off-topic posts. People can't figure out whether he's a spammer, a joker, or just living on a different planet. The site admins feel that this user is driving away other contributors. They ask him to take more care, and he asks, "who says I can't post, this is freedom of speech!" The admins point him to the WCPG, and ban him.
8.4. A site admin is talking to a user who's very annoyed at a change on the site. The user doesn't want to help improve things, but instead starts to attack the site admin personally, and posting long lists of complaints, many going back years. The site admin finds himself spending more and more time trying to answer these complaints but every answer seems to provoke more complaints. Finally, he asks the Tribal Council for help, who point him to the WCPG, which luckily were used in the original site template.
8.5. There are two sites competing for the same community, and one of the site admins has decided to destroy the other site. Using an alias, he goes into the other site and looks for divisive issues, and then focusses on these. He gets everyone arguing about the CSS theme, about whether the sidebar should go left or right, and about whether the font is too large or too small. After several weeks, the community is paralyzed. The site admins discover the WCPG and apply it. Somewhat later, their site recovers.