Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, move, protect
30,891
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 707:
Line 707: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Block: new section
:That's what scary about it; you ''know'' how to verify your remarks or redetermine them if your source doesn't agree, but you won't. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 19:38, 25 February 2020 (EST)
:That's what scary about it; you ''know'' how to verify your remarks or redetermine them if your source doesn't agree, but you won't. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 19:38, 25 February 2020 (EST)
== Block ==
You have been blocked.
== Blocked: RobSmith and VargasMilan ==
;Reasons for action taken.
Substantial violation of key Conservapedia ethical and moral principles: To wit:
[[Conservapedia Commandments]]: number 3.
[[Conservapedia Guidelines#Duties]]:
::Blocking for ideological reasons<br>Name Calling and Insults<br>Using Article Talk pages as Debate Forums for unresolved historical ideological and theological controversies<br>Unjustified threat of blocking and of massive deletion of all previous contributions (see below)
[[Conservapedia Guidelines#Civility]]:
::Violation of Civility<br>Attacking for beliefs
[[Conservapedia Guidelines#Teamwork]]
::number 2.
[[Conservapedia Guidelines#90/10 Rule]]
::The sheer bulk of antagonistic responses of opinionated prejudicial point-of-view compared to the verifiable content of substantiated articles wrongly rejected as wrong and biased, refusal to accept reasonable replies with courtesy and respect, and refusal to let the matter rest.
[[Conservapedia:Topic bans]]: evidence of promoting a personal agenda as against well-founded research
[[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]: numbers 12. and 15.
[[Bias#Encyclopedias]]: clear evidence of slanted bias in unjustified activities against multiple Conservapedia users
[[Trolling]]: evidence of, in exhibits below
;Exhibits follow:
A. Unjustified threat of blocking acted on and threat of obtaining a cooperative partner in plan to exercise massive deletion of all previous contributions
::[[User talk:Dataclarifier#Suggestion]] "enjoy a block" unless a response is forthcoming
::[[Talk:Salvation#Wow]] threat to get an administrator to "nuke all your contributions from day one"
::[[User talk:Dataclarifier#Unjustified block]]
C. [[Talk:Infant baptism#Comment on page]]
::[[Talk:Infant baptism]]: general tone of sheer bulk of numerous repetitive arguments and attacks with more of the same in an extensive archive of the page
D. [[Talk:Helpless babies and sinners]]: attack on an established doctrinal belief
E. [[User talk:Dataclarifier#Infant baptism]]
B. [[Debate: Infant baptism]]: repetitive attacks on beliefs and contentious arguing lacking civility
F. [[User talk:Dataclarifier#Ridiculous arguments]]
G. [[User talk:Dataclarifier#See Talk:Salvation]]
Exhibit A above suggests that RobSmith may have indeed elicited the cooperative agreement of VargasMilan to effect the intended [21 Feb to 1 May] unjustified block removed 25 Feb by AndyS. Further evidence from the comments made by VargasMilan on the linked talk and debate pages of the other exhibits strongly suggests a similar shared hostility and antipathy toward the fundamental key principles of Conservapedia which gradually becomes more evident from the reactions of other users in later postings on both their talk pages.
H. [[User talk:VargasMilan]]
I. [[User talk:RobSmith]]
Copies to Aschlafly, RobSmith, VargasMilan
--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 16:28, 3 May 2020 (EDT)