Metopedia moderation protects the site from vandalism, harassment, spam, doxxing, malware, copyright abuse, edit warring, source manipulation, evidence destruction, and administrative misuse. Moderation must be evidence-based, documented, proportionate, and consistent with Metopedia’s research purpose.

Moderation is not a tool for suppressing inconvenient claims, protecting institutions from criticism, rewarding ideological alignment, or punishing contributors for good-faith disagreement.

Scope

Metopedia moderation policy
Type	Administrative policy
Applies to	Warnings, edit restrictions, blocks, page protection, deletions, removals, appeals, administrator conduct, abuse reports, and enforcement records
Core rule	Moderation exists to protect evidence integrity, contributor safety, site security, legal compliance, and editorial function.
Related pages	Metopedia:Code of Conduct, Metopedia:Policy, Metopedia:Transparency report, Metopedia:Contact

This policy applies to:

warnings;
page protection;
edit restrictions;
temporary and indefinite blocks;
account restrictions;
file removals;
revision deletion or suppression;
spam and abuse control;
conduct complaints;
administrator actions;
appeal handling;
enforcement records;
conflict-of-interest review.

Moderation principles

Principle	Meaning
Evidence first	Administrative action must be based on page history, logs, diffs, files, messages, technical records, or documented risk.
Proportionality	The response must match the severity, recurrence, and risk of the conduct.
Preservation	Content disputes are normally handled by correction, labeling, talk-page discussion, or review before deletion.
Transparency	Actions require clear reasons when publication is lawful and safe.
Safety	Private information, threats, malware, security risks, and harassment receive faster intervention.
Appealability	Non-emergency restrictions must have a review path.
Administrator restraint	Administrators must not use tools to win content disputes in which they are personally involved.

Moderation roles

Role	Function
Contributor	Edits pages, adds sources, proposes corrections, and follows site standards.
Experienced contributor	Helps identify problems, improve pages, and guide new users.
Administrator	Uses technical tools to protect pages, block abuse, delete or restore pages, handle reports, and apply policy.
Reviewing administrator	Reviews disputed actions or appeals when not involved in the underlying dispute.
Bureaucrat or site owner role	Manages higher-level permissions when available in the site configuration.

A contributor’s research position, worldview, or disagreement with a page’s conclusion is not grounds for restriction. Conduct, evidence handling, and policy compliance determine moderation.

Grounds for moderation

Moderation may be applied for:

vandalism;
spam;
malware or unsafe links;
harassment;
threats;
doxxing;
stalking;
impersonation;
ban evasion;
edit warring;
repeated source removal without explanation;
repeated insertion of unsupported claims after notice;
copyright violation;
privacy violation;
undisclosed commercial promotion;
mass low-quality page creation;
automated abuse;
account compromise;
attempts to damage site security;
publication of private credentials or tokens;
refusal to follow administrative restrictions.

Conduct versus content disputes

Metopedia distinguishes conduct problems from content disputes.

Situation	Treatment
Good-faith disagreement about wording	Discuss, cite sources, revise, or request review.
Disagreement about source quality	Apply Metopedia:Source standards and document the dispute.
Repeated unsupported claim insertion	Warning, page discussion, edit restriction if repeated.
Personal attacks or harassment	Warning, removal, block, or escalation depending on severity.
Doxxing or private information	Remove or suppress quickly; document safely.
Malware or security threat	Remove, block, preserve technical evidence, and restrict access.

Warnings

Warnings are used when a contributor can reasonably correct behavior. A warning must identify:

the conduct;
the affected page or action;
the relevant policy;
the requested change;
the consequence of continuing.

Warnings are not required before emergency action involving doxxing, threats, malware, account compromise, severe harassment, legal risk, or active vandalism.

Temporary restrictions

Temporary restrictions may include:

page-specific editing limits;
topic-specific restrictions;
talk-page-only participation;
upload restriction;
block from editing for a defined period;
requirement to discuss before reverting.

Temporary restrictions must include a reason, scope, duration, and review path.

Blocks

Blocks prevent disruption, not punishment. A block may be temporary or indefinite.

Block type	Use
Short temporary block	Active vandalism, edit warring, repeated policy breach after warning.
Longer temporary block	Repeated abuse, harassment, severe disruption, or refusal to comply with restrictions.
Indefinite block	Persistent abuse, ban evasion, severe threat, spam account, compromised account, doxxing, malware, or no credible path to safe participation.

A block notice must identify the reason and appeal path unless doing so would expose private information, security details, or legal risk.

Page protection

Page protection limits editing on a page. It may be used for:

vandalism;
edit warring;
high-risk policy pages;
legal or privacy review;
active harassment;
import or technical maintenance;
pages with repeated spam.

Page protection must not be used to freeze a preferred version of a good-faith content dispute without explanation.

Deletion and removal

Deletion is used when a page or file cannot remain safely or usefully visible. It may apply to:

spam;
malware;
private information;
copyright violation;
attack pages;
duplicate pages;
empty or test pages;
pages outside project scope;
files with no lawful use basis;
severe unsupported allegations about living persons.

Deletion decisions must preserve the reason in logs when lawful and safe. For research material, marking, moving, merging, redirecting, or preserving as an evidence record is preferred when deletion is not required.

Revision deletion and suppression

Revision deletion or suppression may be used for:

private information;
credentials;
malware links;
severe harassment;
legally sensitive material;
copyright-infringing text;
nonpublic personal data;
security-sensitive details.

Suppressed content must be handled with minimal exposure. Administrators must not reproduce sensitive material in public explanations.

Appeals

A contributor may appeal a warning, restriction, block, deletion, or protection decision.

An appeal must include:

the action being appealed;
the page, file, or account involved;
why the action was incorrect or excessive;
what correction or condition is proposed;
whether the contributor accepts any valid part of the decision.

Appeals are reviewed by an uninvolved administrator when possible. The reviewer may uphold, modify, shorten, expand, or reverse the action.

Abuse reports

Reports must include:

username or page involved;
diffs, links, screenshots, or logs;
short description of the problem;
relevant policy if known;
urgency level;
private-information warning if applicable.

Reports that contain private information must be sent through the contact process rather than copied onto public talk pages.

Administrator conduct

Administrators must:

explain actions clearly;
preserve evidence;
avoid personal retaliation;
avoid tool use in personal content disputes;
keep private information private;
use the least disruptive effective action;
document unusual actions;
correct mistaken actions promptly.

Administrators must not:

threaten users outside policy;
remove evidence to win an argument;
hide logs for convenience;
use blocks as punishment for disagreement;
expose private information;
edit protected pages to preserve a preferred unsourced claim;
ignore conflicts of interest.

Conflict of interest

Administrators and contributors have a conflict of interest when personal, financial, institutional, legal, reputational, or adversarial interests may affect judgment.

A conflicted administrator must seek outside review when practical before taking non-emergency action. Emergency action is permitted to prevent harm, but the conflict must be disclosed in the administrative note after the immediate risk is contained.

Documentation

Administrative actions must be documented through edit summaries, deletion logs, block reasons, protection logs, talk-page notes, case notes, or transparency entries.

A good administrative note identifies:

action taken;
page/account/file affected;
policy basis;
evidence inspected;
duration if applicable;
appeal route;
redactions if applicable.

Transparency and privacy balance

Metopedia favors transparency, but not at the expense of privacy or safety.

Public explanations may be limited when they involve:

private personal information;
minors;
threats;
credentials;
security vulnerabilities;
legal notices;
harassment details;
nonpublic abuse reports;
confidential complainant information.

When details cannot be published, the public note should give the action category and reason at the highest safe level.

Enforcement ladder

The ordinary enforcement ladder is:

informal correction;
warning;
page discussion;
temporary restriction;
temporary block;
longer block;
indefinite block;
suppression or legal escalation when required.

Emergency cases may skip steps.

Moderation review checklist

Before applying a significant action, check:

What exact conduct or content is being addressed?
What evidence supports the action?
What policy applies?
Is the action proportionate?
Is there a lower-impact remedy?
Is private information involved?
Is legal or security risk involved?
Is the administrator personally involved?
What explanation can be safely published?
What appeal path applies?