User:Sid/The brief return

After a mail exchange with Ed and TK, I was allowed back onto Conservapedia on July 12, three months after being banned in the last round of the Bible Ban Orgy.

I was banned again (permanently, as usual) on July 13. The reason? Quoting TK, the banning sysop: "Sorry your trolling and working one sysop against the other has failed."

Reason 1: Trolling
A fairly fuzzy term which is (nowadays) used to describe any kind of disagreeing with sysops. I do that fairly often, but since I didn't have much time, it's easy to pinpoint:

I spent a fair share of my unbanned day on Conservapedia talk:Team contest, in the "ACE (baseball) and the contest" section.

In a nutshell, Joaquín Martínez tried to exploit the rule about more sources and external links giving more points and copy-pasted (copyrighted) glossary definitions into new articles and inserted tons of reference links. People of course complained, and I chimed in, too. Fox started a discussion with me, and aside from a few snipes against RW members, things remained relatively okay. Something to note: Fox didn't ban me (even though it would have given him contest points), so I assume that he'd agree with my observation of the discussion being relatively okay.

Reason 2: Working one sysop against the other
This one was a "WTF?" at first, but TK clarified in a mail that it was about my exchange with Rob on my talk page.

Apparently, being contacted by a sysop in a friendly tone and having said sysop posting links is forbidden. Yes, I got banned because Rob posted on my talk page (and because I didn't go all "OH NOES! GO AWAY!" at him, I guess).

Bonus Reason: User:Sid_3050
This is pretty much what led to my ban, so it's somewhat odd that it's not listed in the ban reason (character limit, maybe).

Shortly after me being unbanned, TK claimed that "you will find your page in violation of our community standards". I asked him which section of my talk page violated the rule and where to find it, but TK is apparently above that and simply told me to look it up.

Before I could even answer to that, a few things happened: I finally replied to Ed and TK (who also had been merrily bantering on my talk page), which earned me a two hour block by Ed. TK then instantly undid that block and replaced it with a perma-ban.
 * TK protected my user page
 * Ed quasi-blanked it
 * TK reverted Ed, thus making sure that the "rule-violating" content stayed there without any chance of me fixing it.

The Aftermath
What followed was a mail exchange with Ed and TK. I won't go into details (the mails were filled with even more random accusations by TK and implied assertions of my guilt by Ed), but there is something that sticks out:

TK asserted on his talk page that he had "checked with the majority of Sysops, and they have shown no disagreement". Rob stated that he wasn't aware of any such check, which in turn made me question the validity of that claim.

In my mails that followed my ban, I repeatedly asked Ed two simple questions: In the entire mail history, Ed never even acknowledged that I had asked the questions. No reply to the questions at all.
 * 1) Did TK contact you prior to my ban to check about banning me?
 * 2) Did you agree or disagree?

At the same time, TK refused to tell me which sysops he had contacted and which of those sysops agreed, claiming that I had no right to ask and that he had no obligation to consult other sysops (but he also claimed that he did consult them).

Later on, I noticed that Geo had claimed that my "block has cause and shall not be reconsidered at this time by the sysops in council". Interested, I sent him a mail asking what that cause was (since the reasons above are very shady at best) and I also asked him the two questions above.

His reply also completely ignored the questions about TK's asserted majority, and he simply claimed that I had been believed to be disruptive. When I sent him a mail with the same arguments as presented here, he went completely silent.