User talk:Reguyla: Difference between revisions
Dennis Brown (talk | contribs) add |
Unblocked, with restrictions |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
}}{{clear}} |
}}{{clear}} |
||
==Unblocked, with conditions== |
|||
== Request unblock == |
|||
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. |
|||
{{unblock reviewed | 1=We are now 6 months past the date the community stated I should be unblocked and about a year from the date of the discussion. As an be seen on this talk page my block was extended in October due to a couple people who did not agree with the communities decision to unblock me. Since then I have been creating new accounts periodically to participate because a few individuals won't allow my account to be unblocked. Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive and this block serves no purpose at this point other than to show that some admins do not respect a community decision, they do not want me to edit because I was critical of admins and its standing in the way of edits getting done. I do not think for a second that this account will be unblocked, but I am tired of creating new ones just to edit because a couple admins won't let my account be unblocked. This continued block is causing pointless disruption where no disruption should be just to prove a point. Since the community alreay decided I should be unblocked in February that is the decision I am going to continue to abide by eventhough some are using it as a justification to continue to the block. I am not creating alternate accounts to avoid a block, I am creating alternative accounts because the admins won't follow a community decision. I have been unblocked functionally since February even if the admins won't do the action to technically allow this account to edit. I am following the spirit an intent of the decision. Kumioko/Reguyla [[Special:Contributions/108.56.202.68|108.56.202.68]] ([[User talk:108.56.202.68|talk]]) 17:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC) | decline = You flat out state in your unblock request that you have been engaging in bock evasion. [[User talk:Chillum|<b style="color:Indigo">Chillum</b>]] 18:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)}} |
|||
Reguyla (as KumiokoCleanStart) was banned in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive260#Site_ban_Kumioko_.28and_IPs.29 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. |
|||
*If this gets reviewed again in the future, I would ask that the reviewing admin ping me as a courtesy. There is no requirement, but I've been following this case for some time, I'm uninvolved but informed. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 09:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Despite this, he did manage to persuade [[User:Fluffernutter|Fluffernutter]] to put forward a [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User:Kumioko_ban_review|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, [[User:The Land|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=635144248#Abuse_of_talk_page_access_at_User_talk:Reguyla.2C_and_requesting_writing_of_guidelines_for_use_of_talk_page_by_blocked_users 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 [[User:Dennis Brown|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. |
|||
{{Ivmbox|1= |
|||
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. [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 07:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 07:27, 5 October 2015
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. WormTT(talk) 07:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)