At first I thought Conservopedia must have something like Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View and No Original Research policies that would suggest it wouldn't get

At first I thought Conservopedia must have something like Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View and No Original Research policies that would suggest it wouldn't get involved in research. Then I realized with a name like Conservopedia, it must not have a Neutral Point of View. I was curious what they have instead of a Neutral Point of View, so I looked it up. On its page "How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia" -- http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia... -- it lists this relevant policy: "We do not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts." Talking about "conservative facts" speaks for itself and says a lot. Its Guidelines page -- http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines -- says "Unlike Wikipedia, we do not block for ideological reasons." The Arstechnica article says "Several of those individuals are apparently now ex-Conservapedia members, having had their accounts blocked for insubordination," implying Conservopedia is overstepping its guidelines. This instance sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. If people within Conservopedia discuss Conservopedia, why would someone block mere discussion?