Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:52, 17 February 2014

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Reminder to anyone considering my RFC/U

Reminder: I am blocked except for my talkpage, this page, so if you want me to respond to a question or criticism, you can't do it at the RFC/U talkpage, you have to do it here. I will not engage in the awkward and demeaning process of reading there, answering here, and then depending on someone else to copy-paste me back there. On the other hand, if an administrator sees fit, he or she can unblock me on my promise that I'll not edit anywhere except here and at the RFC/U talkpage. You would have to agree to monitor me though, or someone will complain. Colton Cosmic (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

It'd be kind of nice to point out on the RFC/U talkpage with easily checkable links that several of the assertions in some of the "outside views" are clearly incorrect. Colton Cosmic (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC) PS: @The Devil's Advocate: why thank you, that was one of the worst of them, and to be clear you saw it on your own and I said nothing to you about it. Colton Cosmic (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC) PPS: To be 100% clear, I am not saying their *opinions* are wrong, which is not for me to quarrel with. Rather, they are making *statements of fact* that can be easily disproved by pointing to diffs that may be quickly checked. Colton Cosmic (talk) 04:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: If you look at my very first edit, which is the first link in the "Description" section and also described in the "Response" section, it answers nearly everything you typed in your "Outside view." I do not have "alternate" accounts. I do not have a "primary" or "main" account. I am a single account user that had a single *prior* account that I abandoned for privacy reasons. Colton Cosmic (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can't make anyone do it, but I reiterate my request to be unblocked sufficiently to participate in my own RFC/U. I promise to comment only on its talkpage. In the latest outrageous episode, @The Devil's Advocate: eliminated the sole and sole factual rationale for @Worm That Turned:'s incorrect statement that no dispute had existed between Nomoskedasticity and I before my critical remark at WP:AN/ANI. With only one blink Worm switches to an all-new, unquantified, and purely opinion statement that the "speed it escalated" (the dispute) "implies" a return to a previous dispute. I think it was nine days in which I was excruciating polite as Nomo. made four clearly disputational interactions (and interaction sets, these are not only single remarks) with me, before I made the remark, and I'm ready to recount that with clear diffs if it's useful to any RFC participant. Colton Cosmic (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Colton. Could I ask you to consider the other statement I made? The one that said, why don't you just come back quietly? Worm(talk) 13:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Worm, if I answer that to your satisfaction (which is to say you understand the basis for my reasoning, not that you agree with my position) will you unblock me to comment at its talkpage only, for the duration of my RFC/U? Colton Cosmic (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid not. I've told you the conditions that I'd consider unblocking this account, that you disclose your previous account to me, which I would keep in confidence. I could then confirm your history - ie that you were not returning to past disputes, or indeed if there were issues.

That doesn't preclude you from returning quietly which, although against policy, is something you could do without causing a fuss. Nor does it stop you from explaining your reasons for not doing so. Worm(talk) 14:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You neither offered me confidentiality on the previous account nor did you offer to unblock me if I told you and it turned out to be block and sanction-free. In email you attempted to cajole me into handing it over with no assurances at all. When I declined, it was your attitude that "turned toward abusive," not mine. I will consider discussing the reasons why a "counter-policy quiet reappearance" under a new account is unworkable here if anyone else stops by to ask me about it. Colton Cosmic (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Colton, on 24 April 2013, I wrote to you, copying in NYB -
As for my personal position, I personally believe that anyone can CLEANSTART without notifying anyone of the previous account as long as they don't get noticed. Once they have been "noticed" (and that can range from a sanction to upsetting the wrong person), they should identify the previous account to someone both they and the community trusts. That trusted person can answer questions and vouch for the cleanstart - which is why it is recommended to disclose cleanstarts to the arbitration committee. Without that person, the cleanstart account is indistinguishable from a ban evasion or an avoidance of scrutiny or a number of other violations of the sockpuppet policy.
and then by separate email
It's a shame that you feel that there is an attempt to drive you back to an account that has privacy concerns, it's certainly not my intention. If it helps, I am certainly willing to be the "intermediary", should you reveal the account to me alone I will respect that confidence and not disclose it to any other parties. I thought that I had offered that in the past, but perhaps I had not made myself sufficiently clear.
I've been consistent on this from the start. Again, I've not offered to unblock you if you told me, I've refused to consider it if you don't tell me. There's a difference. As for my attitude turning towards abusive, I don't see where, but I do apologise if I've upset you. At any rate, I'll leave you be - if you want me, just drop a "{{reply to}}" and I'll get it, however I'm headed off on a short hol for a bit, so won't be available for the next week or so. Worm(talk) 14:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: okay, you are correct that you said you would keep the account in confidence, so I was wrong about that a moment ago. Sorry on that point. The other point was whether you offered to unblock, which you did not. You did not upset me, so no need to apologize. As for intermediary as you say in that email portion, Jimbo has the alternate account and is aware that it is warn, block, ban, sanction-free and always was so. Colton Cosmic (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC) PS: Yes, difference between "unblock" and "consider unblocking." Given terms as to what is expected of the previous account, the first represents an offer. The second is nothing at all. Colton Cosmic (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't offered to unblock, no. When it comes to a full unblock, as an "intermediary", if I found no issues with the account, I'd be willing to vouch for the account. If I found issues, I'd discuss them with you and wouldn't mention that I was an "intermediary" anywhere (thereby not disadvantaging you). As for Jimmy, yes, I do remember him confirming you'd given the account... and his response was "Ok, now I've seen it, tell Arbcom". Worm(talk) 15:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to four to participate in my RFC/U

@Wikid77, Raellerby, Grolltech, and Barkeep: Hi guys and gals. I am a long-since permanently blocked editor inviting you to participate in the Request for Comment/User (RFC/U) process to decide if I ever should have been blocked in the first place, and whether to unblock me now. The way it works is you go here to read the case and then you either offer your own "outside view" section at the bottom, or agree with any of the others.

Wikid77, you commented on me at Jimbo's page. Raellerby and Grolltech, I spotted you active at recent court case articles. And Barkeep, forgive me, but I forget where I noticed you. If any of you don't have the time or interest for this, then never mind and excuse me please, I won't ping you again.

I would encourage you to develop your own view rather than try to find one to agree with, because the expressed views so far are heavily weighted to the people in the blocking community and really to those who decided against me long ago. They got there first because they've watchlisted my page. There are also some like Blackmane who came newly to my case.

If you do decide to participate then I'd say A) read the case, then B) go back to the contents and pick and select one-at-a-time viewpoints to consider. Because the viewpoint section is becoming "wall of text" and the top ones shouldn't be more heavily-weighted. Thanks for volunteering if you do. Colton Cosmic (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Indef block for wp:SOCK seems invalid: Granted, other users have investigated and agreed how the original block against you, improperly claiming wp:SOCKpuppetry, was invalid and should be lifted. So, the next issue is to address fears of rehashing old disputes with other users. Anyway, meanwhile, I regret that you were blocked unfairly, even with no discussion (at all) with the blocking admin, and I am sorry it has taken so long for you to begin to receive "justice" about the injustice made against you. I guess the blocking admin should be condemned for the improper block, but perhaps first see if the admin will admit to wrongdoing in this case. Regarding your prior account(s), I understand fears of revealing past usernames, tied to your real identity or common nicknames, because there have been several "secret" leaks where private information was publicized ("oops"), and I think it would be very risky to tell anyone your personal name, nickname, etc. BTW: Jimbo, with a public identity, has received threats even against his family/friends, so beware how your friends could be endangered if your real identity were secretly revealed anywhere here. I have had a guy slug me in the face with a brick, during a conversation, so again beware, there are many unstable people in the world. More later. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey Wikid77, it is heartening to hear someone recognize it like you have. Should Timotheus be "condemned" for the no-warn, no-discussion, no evidence extreme act, and for the contemptible act of sitting back silently and smilingly for ten months as I struggled to overturn it? I'd say that's too strong a word, but his act should be repudiated and he should be admonished for it. If his blocks were ever audited, I know much more of the same would be found, and he should be desysoped for those. I know at least one other, ArkRe, he did like me, except Timotheus didn't even have momentary incivility from the ueber polite ArkRe. Colton Cosmic (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Trying to get a fair judgment is very difficult in the current structure of the English WP. I consider this period to be the "Dark Ages" of Misplaced Pages in many ways: with no procedures to follow "due process" for evaluating user actions, or very limited understanding of who writes the articles, and poor planning to handle the day when there will be 9 million articles, yet the Misplaced Pages software will be unable to reformat to match the updated templates. Even now, I wish you could talk with more level-headed Wikipedians, but I too have been threatened with blocks for "coaching" various users in how to avoid wp:ANI complaints, as if that were wp:TAGTEAM collusion to overthrow the establishment. Some hopeful issues: the people who are talking about you are a tiny fraction of users, and in fact, over 74% of editors never post a talk-page message during a month as the wp:Silent majority who avoid confrontations, and almost all contact, with other users. People who want to treat you fairly are quite likely among those 74% who perhaps formerly posted in user-talk, but now have chosen to avoid posting messages this month, and instead let the article contents speak for themselves. In fact, when Jimbo has asked general users to follow an wp:NPOV-neutral mindset about a topic or user debate, even he has been bad-mouthed in other websites where they have called him a "tyrant" who was "duped" by activists in trying to "bully" people into acting fairly. When tallying the amount of abuse Jimbo has endured, it is amazing he still posts messages at all, but I also wonder if he, as a public person, understands (or remembers) the potential danger to other users if disclosing their real identity without first hiring bodyguards to protect their friends and family. Several users have been "outed" to their employers, and bad-mouthed there (likely with false claims), as if to threaten their jobs. After those character attacks, I could even imagine some might quip, "Well it is your own fault your career is in jeopardy because no one forced you to reveal your real name" where that guy went nuts and contacted your employer. The whole situation is much more risky than many users imagine in their happy-go-lucky good fortunes. As I told another graduate student, I regret people must endure this "dreadful" environment in recent years. Many things to ponder. Anyway, I hope you can sort out your plans at this point. -Wikid77 07:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The tiny fraction of users is actually a pretty good portion of administrators which does a tremendous amount of damage to Misplaced Pages by belligerently and self-amusedly pushing around content editors. I've often thought that Misplaced Pages adminship is basically Disney Land for cyberbullies. The worst administrators have steady backup amongst each other and the rest of them look the other way. When Nihonjoe unblocked, carefully researching and explaining his move, there was great intimidation pointed at him, because they felt he transgressed on their personal power, by taking away one of their kills. That is in fact the defective psychology that permeates the administrative community. It's a flawed personality trait that in real-life or even in other cyber-communities would be criticized and pushed back at, but on English Misplaced Pages for whatever reasons is reinforced and rewarded and has found an home. My plans at this point are to draw some new non-professional-blocker editors into my RFC/U and hopefully achieve a better outcome. There are some things, especially policy things I hope to do if unblocked. Nice hearing from you Wikid77 and please drop a viewpoint at the RFC/U if you get a chance. Colton Cosmic (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah @Wikid77: I see what you did. (At least I think I do.) You mistakenly commented your "Outside view" here at my talkpage instead of over here () at the RFC. The reason I think this is in part because you bolded "Indef block for wp:SOCK seems invalid" above. But then again some of the rest of the comment is clearly conversation with me. Oh well. Please copy all or part of it over there if that is what you meant to do. Colton Cosmic (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You have to ask me here if you want my answers about the RFC/U

@Dream Focus: "So why try so hard to reclaim it if he had another?" As you said in your agreement to @Robert McClenon:'s "outside view" section in my RFC/U. It's a lot to read but if you read the RFC/U body and check the pertinent links, you'll have the answer to "why." I abandoned the prior account for privacy reasons. It's in my very first edit. The reason I don't do a policy-defying "quiet return" (which is Worm's strange new essay he apparently wrote for me (look at the timing)) which you also agreed with, well, I'll address that Dream Focus if you care to ask me about it. You're not just another of the WP:AN/ANI regulars, you have some content interests in line with mine, plus you were at the Phoenix Jones article before me, so I confess I'm a little dismayed and don't understand really why you've come out against me at the RFC/U. It's surely your prerogative though. Colton Cosmic (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You could reveal yourself to Arbcom and no one else would know. If you have the same IP address they'd know who you were anyway. If you can change your IP address, why not just create a new account? I got a message someone used my name on that talk page, thus how I found out it was there. I wouldn't have noticed otherwise. I just got a message that my name was used here, thus found my way here. They added that system a few months back. Dream Focus 05:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see about how you got there. It's interesting how that feature is working. A very few of the people commenting at the RFC/U got there organically, that is to say they keep up with RFCs or something. The majority, including Wormthatturned who dumped two loads of text at the top of the "outside viewpoints" section within a few hours of the RFC's open, since long ago have tracked my talkpage against my wishes and are habitual blockers and block arguers. Now, "reveal yourself to Arbcom and no-one else would now." Ah, Dream, if you knew Arbcom like I know Arbcom. I don't know the new crew as well, but I've experienced so much belittling treatment and underhanded dealing at the hands of some members of the last crew. But the main thing is I have privacy concerns, and there's no privacy on that list. It's like eighteen people that we even know of, plus those we don't, plus the fact that you expose yourself to every Arb that will ever be elected due to the fact that they keep an archive, plus they have historically had leaks. Why don't I just create a new account. The way WP:CLEANSTART policy works is that is disallowed while you're blocked. As well, the new account is expected to go on to new topics and so forth, but my experiences as Colton Cosmic have made me realize that some of the things I've edited, like WP:OPTOUT, WP:CLEANSTART, WP:SOCK and heck even the RLSH stuff need improvement urgently and that is what I want to do. Colton Cosmic (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

@Anthonyhcole: Thank you for taking the time to examine my case and to make the remarks and do the reader-friendly linking you did. As far as I know we haven't interacted before. Really the comments you make are identical to how I perceive things. I don't think I mean that self-centeredly, I am saying that coming across a similar user and fact set as represented by the history and diffs and so forth, you and I would appraise the situation similarly. With some of these other commenters, I feel like we're speaking different languages, with one or the other of us underwater, while a symphonic orchestra plays an extended cacophonous fugue at poolside. So I do these "how could he possibly see it like that" and "what does he even mean by those words" head-scratching moments, and keep slogging on. Cheers, and thanks again for participating. Colton Cosmic (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I'm still reading. There's a bit to read. These are my notes so far. Can you point me to your appeal to arbcom (User:GB fan's description just links to your block log) and to all reviews by others, please? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Heh. Thanks for picking up on the "kindly refrain from taking us for fools" and "darling" remarks. I was like "jeez Louise" at the first, and the second... I found myself wondering what gender/sexual identity combination would make that remark okay. I guess woman would if combined with a friendly relationship. Nomo. also employed that against Youreallycan, to his protests "please call me by my username." Okay, what do you need to know about Arbcom's involvement here. Let me give you an informal version briefly, I've something to do this morning, and then I'll try to supply some diffs, dates and better specifics etc. later today. There was never any arbitration, I only interacted with it via email in the course of appealing my block. Colton Cosmic (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• First was via WP:BASC. Engaged in emails with Silktork only, with long long delays (10 or 11 days?) on his part. He insisted on having my prior account, offered no confidentiality. I pointed out WP:CLEANSTART's "If you are not under Arbitration Committee sanctions, you are not required to notify anyone of your clean start. He concluded with an unexplained denial that included the words "The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered" though I'm convinced that one was Silktork and no other arbs, and in any event it didn't go beyond WP:BASC subgroup by that subgroup's own page. Much, much later, in responding to Nihonjoe's unblock, Silktork let slip that at the time, he considered me a suspect of some mysterious sanctioned user. I was astonished that he had kept this suspicion from me during our emails. Look at Silk's statement here below comment Nihonjoe, and note where he has to strike his own errors twice. Colton Cosmic (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Second Arbcom interaction was also via BASC appeal several months later. It didn't mark my blocklog and this stuff is only contained in emails I can't access at the moment, but I think it was January or February 2013. By this time Timotheus Canens my original blocker was on WP:BASC. I asked for his recusal, got no answer on the point, therefore I conclude and assert that he did not recuse. The guy is immensely verbal, you can see that infrequently in his editing history, in my view he probably was chatting away about me on the mailing list, but of course I can't prove it. Result was denied, again without explanation. Who emailed that one? AGK I think. Colton Cosmic (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Third and other Arbcom interactions. I tried appealing to the entire committee, all email, I guess that was summer last year. As an aside I suppose you've gathered that by this timepoint I've also regularly block-evaded to seek unblock by various, semi-randomly chosen administrators. I'm not sitting on my hands politely for six months at a time waiting for my next chance to get an "APPEAL DENIED" form letter from an arb. So I think in this one my emails are going to the main Arbcom list. I'm copying separately Worm and Newyorkbrad. I hear back from some of the others: Salvio, Nuclearwarfare, AGK, David Fuchs (though Fuchs only confirming my emails are not being filtered). Was there another arb I heard from? I can't recall. Again the response times are ridiculously slow, I go more than a week here and there waiting to hear back. Final response is "declined." Paraphrasing all that follows: I say "why?" AGK says "we have already told you why, I am not going to waste my time on that again." I say "no you didn't." Nuclearwarfare says, belittlingly, "not a single arb spoke in your favor of your unblock." I said "oh really?" (I did receive some support from one or more arbs). Then Worm jumps in "okay, yes you had some support but "the overwhelming consensus" was against you." What else? I've typed enough informally here, Anthony, but I'm still curious to know the numbers of the Arbcom breakdown that allow Worm to claim "overwhelming consensus" against me. Colton Cosmic (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you know the date you disclosed your prior account to Jimbo? Has he confirmed on the record that it was never blocked or sanctioned? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The date I told Jimbo my prior account I can tell, but I have to check and tell you later today. He has not publicly said that it was never blocked or sanctioned. Silktork says somewhere above in this page currently that Jimbo confirmed to Arbcom he was in receipt of the account. Than you for whatever you are working on and I will reply more later. Colton Cosmic (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

@Anthonyhcole: Okay, 13 September 2013 was the date on which I and Jimbo exchanged emails in which I informed him my prior account and he acknowledged receipt, typing the account name. You asked up above to point you to "all reviews by others," but that'd be difficult because I used different IPs to block evade and didn't bookmark those. Those appeals are each originally hand-typed and personalized to whatever administrator because I didn't want to insult anybody by "spamming" him or her and because I kept trying to find the right words that would get somebody to unblock me. But they all have a common theme: "I didn't do it, here's the evidence and my argument, so please unblock me." There must be about 19 like that, more or less, like Worm quoted me as saying to him. It wouldn't be productive or illuminating in my opinion for you to go through all those if I could even find them. If you want representative samples, here (second section down) and here . There were some where administrators literally just told me "too complicated" and "I don't want to get involved" or just ignored me. I just reviewed my informal bullets above and there's no real way for me to add diffs (there are none) or specific dates (that email web-service is down indefinitely). Anything particular you want to know, just ask particularly. Lastly, Anthony, at some point in the RFC/U somebody's liable to point to this or that objectionable edit I've made while block evading. Even you may find something there objectionable, but when you do, try to put yourself in my shoes, it's been very frustrating. Colton Cosmic (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. Done. I should warn you that I am highly despised around here, particularly by a large segment of the admin corps. So, having me speak up for you may not be a blessing. Good luck. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

COMMENT TO ANY PASSING ADMINISTRATOR: I've resolved not to fret about it, but I really think the ongoing RFC/U on my conduct would be more productive and illuminating if I were allowed to participate in it at its talkpage. If you would unblock me for its duration, I'd promise only to comment there (well, and here of course). If you do so though, you'll have to agree to monitor me, or someone will complain. Colton Cosmic (talk) 12:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Only circular arguments made so far

A few observations:

1. Canens did you a favor by not disclosing the previous/original alt account. That was discretion on his part as he was kind enough to assume it was an alt editing policy pages and not an abusive sockpuppet. One of the forbidden things to do is to edit policy pages or policy talk pages with an alt account. The previous block log is not relevant. That's a straight forward violation of WP:ILLEGIT without disclosing the other account. Claiming WP:CLEANSTART on a two month old account drawing near immediate scrutiny is not exactly conforming to the cleanstart. Had he decided to go with abusive sockpuppet evading scrutiny, both accounts would be tagged "Sockpuppet of ..."
2. Why are you wasting two years on a two month old account? Since you already have the ability to evade the block, it's clear you can create new accounts as well. Also, since Canens was able to identify your original account, your privacy concerns ring hollow. It's quite clear that you would be able to create (and most likely have already) created an account that is not linked to this one or your previous one.
3. Why do you want this account and it's stain resurrected in some vanity victory for WP:CLEANSTART? There is nothing clean about it. Are you really asking the community to endorse this account as the model for how start over? sheesh. --DHeyward (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Um, I just reread your remarks twice and I still don't detect where I've made circular arguments or what you could possibly believe them to be. Responses. Well, you broke out your criticisms and numbered them, but you're jumbling the same overall stuff really, so I'll answer all at once: If you read the RFC/U Canens has claimed not to know my previous account. Plus I never had any alternate accounts. I am a single account user that abandoned my prior account for privacy concerns. The previous block log is indeed relevant, WP:CLEANSTART policy says unequivocally you can't do it if your previous account is blocked. I could *possibly* create a new account against policy as you say and edit unrelated stuff without getting caught (although you may be underestimating the hyperactivity and overmuscularity of Misplaced Pages's legion of "sock puppet investigators"). That is not what I want to do, I have contributions to make that I can only make as Colton Cosmic. It may not look that way, but I am not seeking a vanity victory. I wish all the people that have criticized and blocked and harangued Colton Cosmic would unwatch my talkpage and go off and do whatever else it is they do. I surely don't enjoy their attentions. I've edited like eight years and I would just like to get back to editing my interests and contributing to the project in the ways I see beneficial to it. Colton Cosmic (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You start with the presumption that your new account is a "cleanstart" account and the old account is abandoned. That's not readily apparent with only two months editing. A AGF interpretation is that it's an alt which is prohibited from editing policy pages and it was blocked as an alt whence the language in the block log. The statement "I have contributions to make that I can only make as Colton Cosmic" reeks of vanity sockpuppets. --DHeyward (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

That the old account is abandoned is not a "presumption," it's a fact. Why would I lie about something like that in my very first edit? The AGF interpretation is people go by what I said, your interpretation is "let suspicion reign!" The reason I can only make those contributions as Colton Cosmic is not vanity, it's because I would quickly be recognized and (properly) blocked as a sock if I undertook them with a new account. Colton Cosmic (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it's a judgement call by CU when they get a SPI request with a positive return. Two months is not a long time. Also, if you had taken WP:OFFER, you not be blocked and you could have made your contributions 18 months ago. --DHeyward (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. At the time I was first blocked there was no SPI request or formal SPI that I know of, nor was Timotheus Canens a checkuser. Since then I'm sure there've been scores of checkuser searches as well as one actual SPI that was closed without comment, but none have ever yielded a positive return (that I know of). In my opinion WP:OFFER was not ever open to me and still is not. Colton Cosmic (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

BS. I personally presented WP:OFFER many times. DP 17:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Bwilkins/EatsShootsandLeaves/DangerousPanda and whatever other socks with which you have interacted with me and commented so incredibly profusely on me, for the FIFTH time, stay off of my talkpage. I have nothing to say to you and hope it doesn't come to where I feel compelled to respond. Colton Cosmic (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to flat out lie, I have the authority and ethical requirement to correct you. Also, please carefully read WP:SOCK#LEGIT - your false allegations are a violation of WP:WIAPA, and I'll be unhappy to have to remove your talkpage access for the duration of this block for such attacks DP 17:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You choose the right distance to accuse me of "flat-out lying," Bwilkins . 17:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC) PS: @Writ Keeper and GB fan: FYI.

(Didn't get that ping, but whatever.) DangerousPanda, please stay off CC's talk page, as requested. CC, I'm not really sure what you want me to do with those diffs, but asking someone to stay off your talk page is of course something you can do, as anyone else. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment to Writkeeper

@Writ Keeper: I read your outside view. It was Tao2911 that made the critical remark that time at Youreallycan's talkpage. I just looked at his or her page and he or she has become semi-inactive. I think you're reading too much into that instance of my block evading. You sound a bit aggrieved really, but I never meant "administrative abuse" in that comment, I only meant abusive as any editor might be abusive by deleting stuff sans comment. I'm not even sure I knew you were an administrator. Yeah, okay, you went on to explain at Tao2911's talkpage, and he or she countered "my comment simply counters all the defenses and support of this editor here. to remove it is biased." So Tao2911 sort of shared my take on your deletion (though we disagreed on Youreallycan, who I think is great). The immediate context is that there was some eulogizing (i.e. "miss you, you're great, please take care") of Youreallycan, by Anupam, Gerda Arendt, Anthonyhcole, me, and others. So Tao2911 felt the urge to chime in with his or her criticism to balance things. Sure, "bullying" and "obnoxious" are strongish language, but I recognized Tao2911's position: "if you guys are going to eulogize at this grave, by gosh I will criticize and dance a bit." So I saw Tao2911's comment as point-counterpoint, or even point-point-point-point-counterpoint, and within the bounds of civil discussion.

Then you made your move, and yeah I objected to the lack of edit comment, in that context. Timotheus permanently blocked me without comment if you need further insight into my thinking on that sort of thing. I'm not trying to annoy you with more criticism now, but I found it high-handed of you, and shortly thereafter you even locked the page. Now the even longer context is that two months earlier I had tried to insert pretty much the same unblock request for Youreallycan. That one was wiped out by Bbb23, you guessed it... without comment! In all the meantime, I emphasized with Youreallycan who was blocked like me. And still is! Do you know what it is like to be permanently blocked? Well, don't be too quick to fault me for our little clash there, then.

Now, to opine on third-party unblock requests, policy doesn't rule them out. You say mine there was "ill-advised" because Youreallycan got a "community ban." Aha! He did not! The WP:AN/ANI thread title was "Conduct and comments unbecoming of an admin - User:Maunus." As I wrote in the appeal, how should those who might opine on the gravity of lifetime banning an editor realize that YRC's status was at stake? If WP:AN/ANI wants to "community ban" somebody, by gosh, let it have a darn thread entitled "Ban Youreallycan?" or "Should Youreallycan be banned" or something. Don't allow it under the radar in some thread about "Maunus" whoever the heck that is, and then start claiming "de facto" about it. I'm not just quarreling with the title, the substance is also not a community ban process.

Back to your comment at my RFC/U. Yeah, I did other block evasion besides to seek unblock. Put yourself in my shoes, I contributed to Misplaced Pages for years, thousands of edits. So I block evade and find it hard not to make a couple dozen over like eighteen months for other than block appeal. The WP:OPTOUT was one I really found important and didn't want it to wait. I substantially revised WP:CLEANSTART to make it a reader-friendly instruction set in a way it wasn't really when I cleanstarted, to my great disadvantage as we've seen. Phoenix Jones' representative still says he is targeted for revenge by criminals he has taken down, so don't publish his real name and all the other personal stuff they had in there. I think you're making too much of this. The fact that you can't easily evaluate the entirety of my block evasion because it was various-IP-based is not my fault. I can't find that stuff now either! ;) I would've loved to be typing it all under my username so everybody could scrutinize it to death.

In closing, I'm disappointed that I haven't been able to win your support more firmly. I was actually looking to you as the one who might unblock me for good once all the discussion at the RFC/U had played out. That was why they said they overturned Nihonjoe, because he didn't solicit enough community discussion. If anything I said to you above has assisted you to understand me a little better, I hope you will go over to the RFC/U and amend your "viewpoint" section some (PS: you're not "involved") before a bunch of people start agreeing with it. Colton Cosmic (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, well, last things first: if the consensus at the RFC/U is for an unblock, then I'd be willing to unblock you; my own personal opinion isn't all that important, and it's not dead-set against you anyway. About YRC: look at the closing statement. It says, and this is my understanding as well, that prior to that ANI thread, YRC had accepted an edit restriction wherein he would be community-banned if further issues occurred (I'm not 100% clear on what exactly it was). But the point is that YRC was community-banned, had been for several months, and it's not even a particularly controversial one because it was an implementation of a restriction that he himself had agreed upon already. The section heading is irrelevant. As for the comment in question, "balancing out" praise on a banned user's talk page is not at all a thing that needs to be done. If they've been banned, then it's no longer important to "let everyone have their say" or whatever. Not to mention the fact that, even if one was going to do that, reveling in the ban, as evidenced by "about time" and "thank goodness", is still unnecessary. And I'm a little confused as to why you would defend the comment. I don't think you did it maliciously, but that doesn't make it okay. But whatever, people makes mistakes, people disagree about things. The bigger problem is really that the IP-hopping nature of your post-block efforts means that I can't actually tell what else you may or may not have done. If all you had done was appeal your block, then that would be one thing; I could just kinda take it on faith that that's all you'd done, and since, as I said, I really don't think that evading one's block to appeal it is a showstopper, however much of a bad idea it is, I would still consider unblocking because why not. But I know that you've done other things than appeal your block, I know that you've involved yourself in ways that are at the very least questionable, so I can't take it on faith, and because your editing is split across so many different IPs, I can't look it up and see for myself. So I just can't see indication of what an unblock here would be getting us into. That's the biggest problem here, really, and I'm sorry that it's so. But it is. That's not to say that you should never be unblocked, but I just can't see it right now. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Writ, I'll keep it short because I don't want to keep you up, and I don't want to stay up myself too long either. If you're not 100% clear on Youreallycan's situation, and you want to be, you could try reading my unblock request on him: . You could even go back and read the close, which'll get you to the discussion: . It's bull. The other guy called him a "bigot." He responded with a dumb but less offensive statement. So the result is Youreallycan gets dragged through the long urinal that is WP:AN/ANI's idea of evaluating an unpopular editor, getting dosed from both sides of it, and then *Bwilkins* of all people purportedly bans him. Bwilkins whom even Jimbo Wales called a dumb bully. Bwilkins who actually, speaking of gravedancing, did a fandango all over a blocked content editor, actually saying "may you rot in the hell that is eternal block." At some point I feel one has to start standing up for what is right, even if one is not 100% clear on things. You're concerned about my clearly-identified block evasion, I can at least tell you it was all otherwise generally policy compliant. There was some person that accused me of trickery and called me "troll" three times and I called that person a "little skunk" after the third. Tarc kept deleting my final comments to Jimbo at his page that you probably read, so I told him stop acting like Gollum. Heh. I don't think there are dark secrets there. If you unblocked, then found all my neo-nazi edits, my vandalism of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s photograph, my undisclosed marketing of my homebrew Atari 2600 cartridge (just kidding I didn't do any of these) you could still reverse course and say "hey I did due diligence." And, in closing (dum-da-da dum), RFCs are *not about consensus*. They are about casting light on thorny issues to inform editors. They run typically 30 days until the system closes and files 'em. (I read the manual!) So beyond the fact that with all the WP:AN/ANI hounds tracking my every move and howling at me (my talkpage is how Worm and 70 percent of those guys found their way to the RFC) signifying the near impossibility of consensus in my favor, that is also not what anybody is supposed to go by. WP:UNBLOCK is the gold standard for administrators wrestling with thorny unblock questions. Colton Cosmic (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC) PS: Forgot to keep it short, sorry. PPS: I considered it some more and yes, given Youreallycan had submitted to some sort of volunteer probation, placing heightened behavioral expectations on himself, the block was okay. But the talkpage block was not, and it has all gone on too long by now.

Colton, it seems to me the key (but not only) issue here is the injustice of the original block. There is a lot of sympathy out there for you in that regard, even from editors who think you should be sanctioned for your annoying transparent post-block evasion.

If the RfC concludes clearly that the original block was unsound, will you commit to staying away for a given period (maybe not 6 months) to demonstrate to the skeptical an ability and willingness to respect our norms? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that would help, but I recognize that you're trying to brainstorm a solution, so let me mull it over and get back to you later. Colton Cosmic (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC) PS: I saw your changes to your "outside view." I think you successfully smoothed your tone without backing off your positions.