Jump to content

User talk:Devil Ray

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Devil Ray's commentary page:

Blocked by Troll

[edit]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Devil Ray (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked by some troll. Please unblock me.

Decline reason:

You were actually blocked by an administrator. Continued incivility will lead to extended blocks. Please review WP:CIVIL. — ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Looks like the Trolls are running the site. Well, I suppose that was inevitable. What a shame. --Devil Ray 03:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling is defined as the intentional provocation to elicit a negative response. Trolls are usually seen in a very negitive light due to their anti-social behavior. On wikipedia calling someone a troll is considered a violation of our policies on not making personal attacks. Violating "WP:NPA" (as it is abbreviated) is considered disruptive to the community and may result in blocking or eventually banning. Please take this as a learning experience. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William M. Conolly

[edit]

William M Conolly should be stripped of his Adminship. Here's why:

1. [1]--Devil Ray 08:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. A review of his contributions shows that Conolly's edit style is described perfectly in WP:DICK.--Devil Ray 09:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. [2] --Devil Ray 09:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William M. Conelly's Block

[edit]

Re: Denial of unblock for User:Devil_Ray: Look man, did you even look at who posted what on that page? You went ahead accused me of being uncivil. ("Continued incivility will lead to extended blocks. Please review WP:CIVIL.") There is no way what I wrote could be considered uncivil. Conelly deletes peoples comments and then he blocks people who object to his deleting of other peoples comments, then he accuses THEM of being uncivil? Would you LOOK at the history please and pay special attention to the signatures. [3] [4]

I wrote exactly this:

"Deleting another editor's comments that you disagree with is not acceptable behavior. This page is designed to settle questions that are debatable. Fair and honest debate cannot take place if editors are permitted to chop the bits that they don't like out of the record. Please refrain from deleting other's comments."

Where do you see any incivility there? Conelly deleted my above comment from the talk page then he blocked me. Is deleting my comments okay? Come on man, what do we call people who go around deleting other peoples talk page comments. Go ahead... you can say it. That is what he does. And he is an Admin?? What's wrong with this picture? When is somebody gonna make this guy shape up? You're an Admin aren't you? Do something. --Devil Ray 15:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll highlight the incivility I've seen from you:
Those three edits were clearly violations of our civility and no personal attacks policy. Also looking at your history I see some inappropriate edits as well:
  • In this edit you restore content on the talkpage that is -clearly- inappropriate according to our talk-page guidelines.
"Keep on topic: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." (emphasis mine) This edit and this edit are both keeping with talk page guidelines and the removal was entirely appropriate. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nether you nor Conelly appear to be assuming good faith WP:ASG. Let me illustrate.
  1. You apparently think the word "troll" is uncivil. Troll is a verb used to describe disruptive editing. People who troll are often described as trolls. This is common usage here in Wikipedia. I don't know of another word in usage that describes this activity. BTW troll was not invented here, it is well established Usenet terminology.
  2. If Conelly thought that the word troll was uncivil, he should have, would have said so, and then he should have, would have asked me to change it. He didn't. You are grasping at straws on this. Conelly did not even accuse me personally of incivility. You did. He called what I did "Restoring Incivility" referring to one of Childhoodsend's comments, NOT mine. So you are way out on a limb here.
  3. Conelly did not just revert Childhoodsend's first comment, he reverted his/her second comment and also my comment which were both relevent to his own comment (which he did NOT remove, and was actually uncivil) I did NOT remove his incivility because he should be told to remove it himself. That is what a civil person would do.
  4. Here is proof in Conolly's own words that he does NOT think the word "troll" is uncivil: [5] If we are both wrong, then Conolly needs to block himself for incivility. Or you might do it if you were fair.
  5. You did not answer either of my questions, which makes me question your impartiality. What was it in MY deleted comment that was, as you accuse, uncivil? (deleted comment is shown above) If you again fail to address this and the deletion of my comment, then I will assume that you agree with me that it was not in fact uncivil at all, and therefore deleting it was, in fact, an act if incivility as per: WP:TALK. Not to mention the second comment made by Childhoodsend.
  6. The first order of business for an Admin is not attack, it is communication, and then education, and then resolution. Conelly has not lived up to his responsibility here. Add to that his rude and condescending and yes uncivil attitude with me, and you have an editor who is spinning out of control and who is hurting the project more than he is helping it. By continuing to let him be an Admin, and failing to sanction his violations, we are allowing him to tear at and destroy the inclusive doctrine of Wikipedia and feed into his destructive behavior. By feeding him in this way and defacto endorsing his destructive behavior under the flag of Administrator, we are making a mockery of this project and all of the hard work done by policy abiding editors since the inception of this project. The articles that Conelly edits are very high profile articles and Wikipedia cannot afford to have one Admin making a pigs ear of those very important subjects and Wikipedia cannot afford to have one Admin driving away valuable contributers both newbies and old friends no matter how "valuable" or "respected" that Admin's contributions may have been in the past. No one person is worth the destruction of Wikipedias reputation as a credible and relevant source of encyclopedic information. I have watched Conelly's reactions to caution after caution and objection after objection to his heavy handed and rude use of Admin tools and I see no remorse over his violations, on the contrary, I see him arrogantly thumb his nose at other editors and goad them into conflict after conflict after conflict. The man is guilty of being a marauder. We have given him a little power and he has gone mad. It is time to put an end to this. He is overdue for a total ban. He can go edit on some other site. --Devil Ray 03:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know Will, nor have I followed his edits in any capacity, but I can garentee you no one will block someone for something that happened 3 months ago.
After your block you call Will a troll three times and then you call me a troll after I decline the unblock. Frankly your very lucky I didn't extend your block to a week. Sorry... you will never be granted an unblock when the request is an insulting violation of policy. Thats just all there is to it.
I recommend learning the lesson here and getting back to improving the encyclopedia. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I think you have just betrayed where your loyalty lies by knowing that the Admin in question is called "Will" and not Bill or Liam. Now you are just bashing me because you don't want to answer the hard questions. Oh and by the way, the trolls (plural) refers to the abuses by "Will" and his cult cabal which you have just denied being a part of, so there is no sense in faining insult.
Oh and Conelly was right, Devil_Ray is one of several "socks" set up by a Wikipedia donor organization to patrol for abusive Admins and flag them. Elimination of flagged abusers is a pre-condition of future donations from this organization.


This investigation is now closed. Have a nice day. --Devil Ray 07:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Will" was just a guess. Anyway, good luck with your "investigations". ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Devil_Ray&oldid=143310036"