User talk:Reguyla: Difference between revisions

Unblocked, with conditions

Having spent a long time looking into this case and discussing the matter with Reguyla, I am hereby unblocking him with some restrictions detailed below.

Reguyla (as KumiokoCleanStart) was banned in February 2014. At that point he launched a massive campaign to disrupt Wikipedia with the expectation that someone would see it all as unjustified and unblock him. I should know, I was one of the arbitrators on the receiving end of the junk, getting hundreds of emails, often abusive. Along side that, he violated the ban over and over again. Generally, this behaviour had the effect of further alienating him from those who may have been in a position to help him.

Despite this, he did manage to persuade Fluffernutter to put forward a ban review in August 2014. The outcome was that Reguyla was "unbanned" and to be left blocked for 6 months with "zero disruption". And here's where things fall apart - disruption is different to each editor. Reguyla's talk page was left open, so he started using it - noting issues he'd seen and areas he was planning to improve.

In October 2014, he started talking about RfA - an area for which he holds much animosity. By the end of the month, he was pinging large groups of people to bring the discussion to where he could join in. In November, The Land (who closed the ban review) advised that an angry argument could result in his block being extended, and sure enough that's what happened.

Is that disruption? There's a very reasonable argument that it is, but there's also a reasonable argument that it isn't. I certainly cannot blame Reguyla for violating a woolly restriction, especially as his talk page was explicitly left open. At any rate, a subsequent ANI lead to the block (and explicitly not the ban) being reset, without talk page access.

In February 2015, just short of the initial 6 months "zero disruption" period, Reguyla started evading the block. His block was reset, and eventually set to indefinite - all by individual administrators. The case was never brought back to the community for a ban discussion. So, I decided to open dialogue with Reguyla offwiki. We discussed his previous behaviour and I was pleasantly surprised to see him freely admitting regret with regards to the email campaign. I felt he was being genuine enough to come up with some restrictions - something that I thought would allow him to return to editing (which we want), but keep him away from "hotspot" areas.

He did agree to my conditions, and as a sign of good faith declared his evasive editing. He also agreed not to make any edits to Wikipedia for the period of one month. I marked this point with an edit on his talk page (archiving the content) at that point. In the mean time, I have discussed my intent to unblock Dennis Brown, who may have some comments to add.

Whilst I do not intend to actively "mentor" Reguyla on his return, I do intend to keep a keen interest in his returning behaviour, as well as being a point of contact for him if he's struggling or indeed any other user if they're having an issue with Reguyla.

So - Reguyla. You are hereby unblocked with the following restrictions.

For the period of 1 year following the unblock

• You may not comment on administrators as a group, nor on any sysop or desysop procedures.
• You may not participate in any noticeboard listed in the general section of "Template:Noticeboard links" unless you are previously involved in or named as a party in a discussion that has been brought to the noticeboard.
• Should you wish to take up an issue against any administrator, you must discuss the matter with Worm That Turned prior to doing so and get his agreement.

After the period of 1 year, these restrictions will expire. Should you break the restrictions, you will be blocked for a finite period of no less than 72 hours and no greater than 1 month. If the restrictions are breached 3 times, an indefinite block will be reinstated.

I'm putting a lot of faith in you here, aware that you have a history of being a decent editor. Keep away from the areas that have caused grief in the past and prove that my faith was not misplaced. Worm^TT(talk) 07:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• I would add that I've been following the situation since right after the initial community ban, which itself was rather quick and lightly attended. The problem was what to do about it. I've exchanged dozens of email with Reguyla as well, but for as long as the original socking continued, I didn't believe there was anything I could do except watch and encourage him to stop socking via email. My experiences and observations are exactly the same as Worm's above. This was an unfortunate situation but one that Reguyla made worse by his overreaction to the situation. In some ways, I could understand his reactions, even if he took it too far, and understand why he felt the process failed him, as it did. The history became so convoluted with blocks and bans, it was hard to tell what any single admin could do without community input, but I appreciate Worm sorting it out. In short, I fully and wholeheartedly support Worm's decision and actions here and hope Kumioko/Reguyla puts the opportunity to good use, and resists the urge to push the boundaries here. You're a smart guy with a lot of offer Wikipedia, and as long as you can follow the basic restrictions here, I think we are much better off with you than without you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you both for your comments and thank you Worm That Turned for finally unlocking my account. You both represent the best of the projects shrinking pool of responsible and respectful admins. I am going to make this reply and try not to speak of it again. In fact I will archive this in a couple days once all the trolls have a chance to come here and fight and cry about how unfair my return is and I expect this to be overturned or manipulated by one of them shortly so I am going to be blunt. Its only a matter of time before one manipulates this like they did in the past, no one stopped them then and no one will intervene this time. It goes without saying I never agreed with the way the original ban was done and still don't and nearly everything in the last 2 years would have been avoided had policy been followed and enforced at that time. I also want it clear I don't agree with several of the things that you state above and it paints me in an unfair light given all the policy violations by others along the way but you are entitled to your opinion, especially as the only one willing to facilitate my account being unblocked. As I stated via email I regret many of my actions and I should have handled it better and much of my actions were born out of my disappointment and frustration with how it was handled. I am further disappointed by the failure of the admins on this site to follow the community decision and allowing a couple people who voted against my return to change the outcome they didn't agree with. But its time to set that all aside and move on. I still believe in this project even if there is a lot of petty bullshit and politics on this project that I can't change. My hope is that at some point the larger community as a whole will get tired of being treated like trash and the double standard between the community and the admins so that everyone on this project is treated fairly, not just the ones with the power to block. At least that is my hope. Just as I confirmed I would follow the community ban decision last year and did before it was violated by others with their own agendas, I confirm that I will abide to the stipulations set forth above even though I feel they are not necessary and shouldn't be required because that was not in the community decision I agreed to last year that was never taken seriously and was never going to be allowed by some on this site. After this reply, I will do my best not to engage any admins or admin areas as outlined above. If questions arise that I feel need to be addressed I will discuss them first. Reguyla (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Your first restriction is "You may not comment on administrators as a group", it took very little time at all for you to mention the "projects shrinking pool of responsible and respectful admins", and how you are "disappointed by the failure of the admins on this site to follow the community decision". User:Worm That Turned is going out on a limb for you here so I suggest for his sake you try harder to actually follow these restrictions because you are not off to a great start. HighInBC 14:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

That was limited to my initial reply. Now lets move on! Reguyla (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I do think it is reasonable to allow a singular comment on the last two years, and yes, now it is time to move on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back, Kumi. Awesome news. Begoon ^talk 14:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, lets see how long it lasts.:-) Reguyla (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It'll last indefinitely. Seriously, welcome back. Do the stuff you're good at, because you're good at that, truly. You know what not to do. Begoon ^talk 14:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I think we all hope for the best on all sides here. John Carter (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Lets be frank here John. I have no more respect for you than you do for me so you'll excuse me if I find your comment utterly disingenuous trolling. You were one of the opposers at my community review (which is fine) but then you were one of the 3 that went out of your way to change the outcome of the community decision to what you wanted. If it weren't for you I would have been editing more than 6 months ago and the project would have several thousand more useful edits. So do us both a favor and take my talk page off your watch list and pretend I don't exist ok! And by all means go start a discussion about it at Wikipediocracy and gloat like you did last time. Reguyla (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I do have some respect for you, despite your comments above. And I had started a thread already about this, in fact before I posted here, as can be seen there. I regret to say that your explicit assumption of bad faith of others in the above comment is more an indication that you are unwilling to let go of the past than anyone else, and, I regret to say, that is far from being a good sign. Good luck - I think based on the above you might need it. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

John, I like you, and your WO thread is what alerted me to this, but do take the hint and go away when asked. There's a good chap. Begoon ^talk 15:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I just want to respond to one thing John said. My statement wasn't an assumption of bad faith. It was a statement based on John's history of making comments here and elsewhere about me and his active involvement in getting the community decision to unblock me suspended because he didn't agree with it. So if he has any respect for me he sure has a funny way of showing it. Also, just to be clear, if there is a discussion on WPO I cannot see it, because I was blocked from that site for declining to help them with their smear campaign and for leaking negative information they gave me that they had compiled on several admins and other people here. So their "trustees" decided to "block" from WPO. Which is less of an insult to me frankly than being included in that band of lunatics. I do admit that they occasionally have some good info and some days I glance at what the hot topics are, but generally its just a bunch of nuts with very little of value to anyone. Now, I ask again John, move on and find someone else to pester. Reguyla (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

but generally its just a bunch of nuts with very little of value to anyone. I love you, too. Begoon ^talk 16:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Your one of the better ones. So is worm and several others who actively participate there. But you have to admit, sometimes the comments get pretty over the top. Reguyla (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

One of the restrictions not clear

Writing a subsection here since the above area has devolved quickly. @Worm That Turned:; The third bullet in the restrictions says "Should you wish to take up an issue against any administrator,..." Does this mean any issue or does it mean the administrative actions (or even inaction) of an administrator? Note that the former is effectively an interaction ban with all administrators. I ask not to be picky, but in the full knowledge that the most well intended restrictions often suffer from interpretation. We need to be clear. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a good question. Thanks for bringing that up. Reguyla (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• It's already been interpreted as an interaction ban with all administrators by at least one editor. This is a real problem. The restriction needs to be clarified. If it means an iban with all admins, even that needs to be clearly delineated. Can Reguyla particpate in discussions where admins have taken part, so long as he doesn't respond to admins? Or...what? Since it obviously can not be a two way street; admins wouldn't be ibanned from Reguyla, what can Reguyla do if an administrator attempts to interact with them? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

My intention was that he not raise issues about individual administrators or complain about them, without double checking with me first. This was to stop the likelihood of grudges and also to focus him on what he's good at, content. It also signalled my ongoing commitment to remain part of his return. Worm^TT(talk) 19:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Forgive me, but that still seems unclear. Is this a one way iban for Reguyla towards administrators? He is not to talk to them at all? Or, he can talk to them, but not when it has to do with admin actions/behavior/etc.? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

  He can talk to them. He can't "take up an issue" - i.e. complain about their administrative actions. Worm^TT(talk) 20:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Its irrelevant. No one is going to let me edit a known account and this whole unblock nonsense was obviously just a bullshit setup. Thanks for nothing. I never should have agreed to it. I knew this is how it would end. All it took is for someone to block for a comment, then you endorse and Reguyla's a fucking asshole. This was obviously never a serious unblock, it was a setup. I thought you were better than that, oh well, guess I was wrong, live and learn I guess. Reguyla (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I trust...

... you have all seen this. --MelanieN (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I did. Its unfortunate and I mentioned to someone else I think its a shame for them to do that. Its not a secret me and Floq don't like each other but my intention is to edit the project not drive off others, but Floquenbeam is an adult and can make their own decisions. If I thought it would help I would ask them to stay myself but it would certainly seem disingenuous given our history. Reguyla (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

[1][2] One can only wonder why a mutually-agreed-upon interaction ban wasn't an option. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I find it absolute shame as floq is one of my favourite admins, and will leave him a note. However, I can never condone that sort of ultimatum. Worm^TT(talk) 19:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon The current list of concessions was drafted by Worm and was based on a standard set of restrictions used on any number of cases in the past, it was (as I understand and assume) reviewed by a couple of others and I agreed to it. Not because I like it, because I do not, but because he was the one willing to discuss it. Everyone else wanted to act like children, stick their thumb in their mouth (or elsewhere), ignore emails, stomp their feet and give the silent treatment. So the result you see is based on those who put in the effort. Therefore, I have very little sympathy towards those who do not agree with it or like it. If they don't like or agree with it, then next time they should do the work to get the deal that they prefer, since they opted not to participate, what they get is what was agreed upon by those that did do the work. I did not like my block and worked to change it. Some didn't like the community ban review result and changed it and I expect there are some already working to change this unblock and continue the cycle. I do not expect everyone to like it, but just like the decision was made to block me, the decision was made to unblock me. Now everyone needs to live with it until I do something worth blocking me for and we should all move on....unless there is some genuine need to create unnecessary drama on the project that I am not aware of. Reguyla (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

There must be a genuine need to create unnecessary drama on the project. Otherwise why would so many people do it? :( --Guy Macon (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I know right, lotsa folks need stuff to do, not all can English the words too good. Reguyla (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

For this comment. You knew you were on thin ice but still chose to post that completely unnecessary response. The block would have been an indef but I'll let the inevitable community discussion decide that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I just came off a block that has lasted way too long already. Worm made a statement and I should be able to comment on that. There is no reason for a month long block for "disruption" when anyone can see there is no disruption. This is just another excuse to block me for a bullshit reason. I am requesting unblock.Reguyla (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I fully endorse this block. I put down some fairly light restrictions, and you stamped on them. This isn't about right of reply - this is about commenting on admins as a group. If I'd been online when the offence was committed I'd have blocked myself, not for a month, but problems not for 72h either. This block will expire in a month, you can return then - and if you do, do it better. Worm^TT(talk) 19:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

See WP:WHEEL. I will be posting to WP:AN for a review. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Neil all you did was looked for any reason you could use. Its obvious it wouldn't have mattered what it was. You ran around to multiple pages asking questions to determine what the best way to block me was. That is exactly the petty policy manipulations that were used to get me banned, that were used to change the outcome of my ban review and that I have been pissed about for the last 2 years. Reguyla (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, your talkpage is currently open. If you don't think you can keep your foot out of your mouth, I will quite happily close it. Worm^TT(talk) 19:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok fine, since Worm endorses it fuck it, deals off. The community unban request already unblocked me in February anyway, this was just a bullshit side deal to try to avoid drama. All I wanted to do was edit and improve the project but you all weren't mature enough. So ok, understood. I never believed for a second that this was going to be real anyway and I knew when it came down to it I would be on my own. Reguyla (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Review_of_Reguyla_.28Kumioko.29_reblock --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Neil, just indef the fucking account. Its going to happen anyway no matter what I do or don't do. The community already unblocked me last February anyway but no admins had the morale courage to do it, this is just nonsense. Reguyla (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk page closed. Reguyla can come back in a month and try again. I genuinely think he could return - but if accepts restrictions he needs to abide by them. Worm^TT(talk) 20:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Please use AN discussion or User_talk:NeilN to discuss block NE Ent
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You all blocked a user for voicing a negative opinion on his talk page, not for something done in article or article talk space? What the heck is the matter with you guys? Is this because another admin threatened to hold his breath until he turned blue unless this editor was blocked again? Why don't you wait and see if this editor can edit articles productively and otherwise let him voice his opinions on his talk page as long as he's not outing someone or calling someone names. Cla68 (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Based on what you have said I suggest you are speaking out of ignorance. There is a rather extensive history here, have you versed yourself on this matter prior to commenting? HighInBC 00:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC) FWIW, I can say that I think Cla68 is probably very familiar with the general situation here, and with the history of the editor involved. John Carter (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Was the editor told that he couldn't complain about anyone on his talk page as part of the conditions of his unblock? If not, then the block is bush league, because it was made for him having an opinion you disagree with instead of for a problem with editing an article. You all should really know better than that. Cla68 (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Yes he was. And if you have an issue with my block, you can post to my talk page. --NeilN talk to me 00:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC) (e-c) Actually, if you look at the terms of the unblock as WTT posted them above, in the "Unblock, with conditions," section, one of the conditions, in the boxed text, was that "For the period of 1 year following the unblock You may not comment on administrators as a group, nor on any sysop or desysop procedures." And he did rather explicitly comment on those topics. John Carter (talk) 00:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC) I was about to say the same thing. He was given a clear restriction (which, alas, I hadn't read when I replied) and immediately violated that restriction. Reguyla should not pretend that he is the victim here or that there is some sort of conspiracy against him. This is a clear case of WP:ROPE, and Reguyla is well-advised to actually abide by any restrictions he has agreed to when this block expires. Good block. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I support your return. Your free sPeech should never be a criteria for editing here. It's clear they are making a political prisoner out of you. 166.171.121.70 (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)