Misplaced Pages

User talk:Colton Cosmic

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DangerousPanda (talk | contribs) at 13:54, 13 April 2013 (→Bored Reader? Take my Civil Challenge: challenge accepted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:54, 13 April 2013 by DangerousPanda (talk | contribs) (→Bored Reader? Take my Civil Challenge: challenge accepted)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

I am preparing to archive much of this awful and terribly long page. I have been blocked, rightly or wrongly, and it is not my intention to hide any of that, only to clean up my talkpage, so here is the link to my blocklog. Colton Cosmic (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1

ArbCom unblock appeal

The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered the user's appeal and has declined to unblock at this time. After six months of not editing Misplaced Pages under any account including IP accounts the user may again apply to have the block reviewed. Colton Cosmic would also need to reveal to ArbCom all previous accounts held.

For the Arbitration Committee. SilkTork 09:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I have started Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Colton Cosmic to keep a proper log of all IPs used to block evade. GiantSnowman 10:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
... and I did a small range block to catch a chunk of his addresses. He really needs to recognize that his latest actions - protesting as an IP - will prevent any future unblock, even if he believes he's simply "defending himself". "Go away for 6 months" means "go away for 6 months" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest that the 6 month minimum period be doubled for every continued socking attempt; 3 more times today. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course "go away for 6 months" achieves nothing. Far better to actually address the original cause of the block, which is not really documented here. Rich Farmbrough, 00:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC).

An IP claiming to be Colton Cosmic has appeared at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Jimbo.2C_You.27re_My_Last_Resort looking for an unblock. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

  • And the IP socking continues . Colton, in case you didn't realize this somehow after all this time, every time you do this you have proven once again thy you are not to be trusted and are unwilling or unable to respect the block on you. If you don't evade the block one single time for any reason for six months or so you may have a path to getting unblocked if you the appeal to BASC again. If you keep this up all you are doing is resetting the start time for that minimum six months of no block evasion the commuity is going to want from you before letting you back in. Your choice. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
What a great way to say "hey Misplaced Pages community, I've got myself together, and I'm prepared to come back" </sarcasm> (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
And if David Biddulph's suggestion is followed, he's going to be away for a long time. However, maybe we should listen to him re: ArkRe, since Colton seems to be our resident sockpuppetry expert! Hey, look! More sarcasm! RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I had a request from Colton Cosmic to restore his ability to edit this page, so that he could press his case for an unblock. Given that the request was made via IP on my talk page (Here), I declined it outright. Start the timer again. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 17:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

...and he's now gone beyond simply re-setting the 6 month wait period - he's now extending it by an additional month each time he socks. So - reset to 7 months from right now. Next will be 8. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
8 it is. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
After he flipped out on my talk page, I blocked the IP. Is there a sock report or a list somewhere where we're tracking the socks as they crop up? UltraExactZZ ~ Did 21:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Now 9. - David Biddulph (talk) 08:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Up to 10. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


  • I've received an email requesting review of the block. He was nice enough, so I'm just documenting, not complaining at this stage. I've politely recommended that he give up and find a different hobby. Not everyone is suited for editing here, and continuing to try is only going to make him more unhappy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It is rather important that he come to understand that WP:BASC is the only acceptable avenue for requesting unblock, and that continuing to evade the block again and again and again is the surest path to not getting unblocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
That's most of why I let the IP go on for a bit - wanted to engage and see if I could convince him of that. I was.... unsuccessful. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 14:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Another one for the collection (User:71.11.29.142), this time at Third Opinion. ★ Bald Zebra ★  15:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. I make that 11 months, starting from today. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Two more IPs on my talk page. Colton, if you're keeping track of this, editing while logged out to appeal your blocks is precisely the wrong way to go about doing this, and will guarantee that your appeal is declined without any consideration whatsoever. Stop. Hersfold 01:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC) 
6 March 2013. So, per WP:OFFER ... six months, maybe. NE Ent 00:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I think the ship has sailed on the standard offer, I certainly wouldn't support it at this point, this has become a case of WP:LTA. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Colton, you and I have talked about this privately. Misplaced Pages just isn't going to work out for you. I was sincere, and still am, that this just isn't the right environment for you to participate in, and I still suggest you find a different venue to contribute in. It isn't personal, and it really isn't taking much of my time, but is this really how YOU want to spend your time, when you could be doing something constructive somewhere else? Based on our previous conversations, I am guessing not. So please, put aside the idea of being here, or the frustration from it, and just find something else to do. You aren't benefiting anyone, including yourself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is one that's been missed. I'm not the person to remove it, given the location -- but I do think it should be removed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Evading the block again today. GB fan 22:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

And again today as 71.234.160.66. I second Beeblebrox above; this has gone beyond the point where the SO should be on the table. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
And again today, . GB fan 14:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

User unblocked

After carefully reviewing everything I could find regarding alleged sockpuppetry (the reason for the initial block), I can find no solid evidence of actual sockpuppetry. Using an IP address and announcing that it is you is not disallowed. As far as I can tell, the main use of the IP addresses has been to try and ask for further review. Since he was prevented from editing his own talk page, and was getting little to no response via email, this seems to be an understandable attempt to get someone to pay attention.

Reviewing the definitions given at WP:SOCK:

  • There is no evidence of additional accounts created in order to avoid detection;
  • There is no evidence of using another person's account;
  • There is no evidence of logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address; (emphasis added)
  • There is no evidence of reviving old unused accounts (or "sleepers") and presenting them as different users; and
  • There is no evidence of persuading friends or acquaintances to create accounts for the purpose of supporting one side of a dispute.

As there is is no evidence of any ArbCom case in which this editor was involved, the above "sanctions" from ArbCom are out of order. This editor has been blocked for almost a year with very little hard evidence of any real wrongdoing (I did find evidence of a possible 3RR (see links at the top of this post), but the editor stopped edit warring immediately thereafter). The editor's contributions prior to the indef block were generally acceptable and certainly not warranting a block of this magnitude. Therefore, I have unblocked the account.

If the editor in question decides to go on a rampage (which I doubt will happen, given what I've seen of his edits), then we can certainly block him again for actual misdeeds. I think this punishment has gone on far longer than necessary, given the severe lack of solid evidence of serious wrongdoing. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I am grateful for this chance, and I will strongly endeavor not to to disappoint Nihonjoe's faith in me. Colton Cosmic (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Now at WP:ANI. GiantSnowman 16:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

So that a little more information is available on the Committee's decision to decline the appeal. When the user appealed to ArbCom, I asked the blocking admins for the rationales for the blocks. I was informed there was a reason to feel that this user was a returning banned sanctioned user. In correspondence with the user they admitted agreed this was a second account, but refused to reveal to ArbCom what the previous account was. Under the circumstances - as we did not have all the information - we felt it was inappropriate to unblock. I assume that Nihonjoe went through the same process of establishing why the account was blocked, and has established from the user what the previous account was, and is satisfied the previous account is not that of a banned sanctioned user. It would be helpful in the circumstances if Nihonjoe could confirm this to ArbCom by email so we can allow this user to edit in peace. SilkTork 18:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Edited in line with user's comments below. SilkTork 21:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Checked the timeline - the user this was believed to be was not banned or blocked at the time, but under ArbCom sanctions. So I have clarified that in my above comment. However, the important part is not who the other user is, (and it wouldn't be appropriate to name that person because Colton Cosmic states they started this new account because the previous account had been "outed", and also they may not be the other person, so there's no need to spread the drama), but that Colton Cosmic wasn't prepared - for whatever reason - to allow us to check if they were that user. That decision was Colton Cosmic's with awareness that without being able to establish for us that their previous account was not under a cloud, we couldn't overturn a block. SilkTork 07:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
It's never occurred to me previously to add "and I was not sanctioned either" to everywhere I've said "I was not blocked or banned." I state so now. My pre-cleanstart account was never blocked, banned, or sanctioned. I invite you to infer the last part rereading anything I've said on the matter previously. I am not Silk's mystery user, though I'm admittedly gaining a darkly humorous interest in whoever it could be. Which is not to make light of the current debate over my unblock, don't get me wrong! As well, providing my clean prior account to ArbCom could never assure them I had no *other* previous account under a cloud, which is unknowable if you think about it. And no, before you ask, I had no other previous account. As well, to disagree with Silk, I was aware that ArbCom wanted to examine my prior account, but I was never told my appeal entirely depended on this. I thought my appeal would be decided on the totality of the case. Lastly I am not confident in the security of ArbCom's mailing list, neither do I have a trust basis with any arb, and surely not all of them, sufficient to believe the identification of my prior account would stay confidential on the list. Colton Cosmic (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I was entirely and conscientiously open about my reason for WP:CLEANSTART from my first edit. Because of that I resist SilkTork's statement that I "admitted" this in correspondence with him. That first edit specifically states that "Colton Cosmic" is a sequential account and not an alternate one. (It is also true that I had WikiMEDIA accounts that I just uploaded some pictures with, because I had to or thought I had to, but I never edited with those, except on the picture pages, and the reason I had two was because I forget the password.) Colton Cosmic (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to make a wrong left turn, so I'm a stay out of it. I am available here to answer questions in my own defense. Colton Cosmic (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Probably a very good idea. The issue is really one of administration, not your actions, but I wanted to make sure you knew since it was related to your unblock. I notice that GS had already notified you, and I had just missed that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
    Colton, the allegation wasn't just that you were a returning user but that you were a returning blocked user. You haven't addressed that when you've mentioned clean start, as far as I've seen. So without asking you to identify your old account by name, I'd like to know whether it is currently blocked and/or under any other unexpired sanctions. Thanks. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC) (Added:) Never mind, I see further up (07:52, 21 May 2012) that you claim the old account was not blocked or under sanctions. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 05:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
That is correct. SilkTork says above that he was "informed there was reason to believe I was a returning banned user" by Timotheus Canens or UltraExactZZ. At WP:ANI he adds the the word "particular." He states he "established that there was reason to believe this was a particular returning banned user" in his "approaching the admins involved" in my block. Respectfully, this borders on weasel wording. How was it established, what was the reason, which of my blockers says so, who was the banned user, and why are we being cloak and dagger about it? I communicated with SilkTork at the time, was aware surely of a general suspicion (which I felt was not warranted) but this is the first I've heard of any particularity about whom I'm suspected to have been. I suppose I would've denied it in my appeal ("I'm not him because...") At any rate I am not that user, whoever it is. It is also correct though that I do not want my current account linked with my *actual* previous account, which was *not* banned (or blocked, ever) for the reason I've said. So yeah I am little cautious in this general area. In summary, I assert not only that was my previous account not banned or blocked, but that there is no reasonable ground to even suspect this, because all of my Colton Cosmic edits, including the IP edits I signed and clearly identified as Colton Cosmic, have been forthcoming and sincere. Colton Cosmic (talk) 07:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Do you realize how many times we've heard "I am not that user, whoever it is" only to find out that the account saying that is that user? What I don't understand is why you haven't chosen a single admin to reveal your previous account to in private. Since that would all but solve the problem and you refuse to do it, I have to say there is no good reason to believe you. Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
There is also no good reason not believe him. I not seen one piece of evidence not to WP:AGF and therefore I believe him.--I am One of Many (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
All of the reasons not to believe him are posted in the first section of this page titled "ArbCom unblock appeal". His ability to sock is proven. Nihonjoe was one of many admins who were contacted. His unblocking ignores the evidence collected already, some of it in private. "AGF" doesn't mean you take your brain out of your head and place it in the garbage can. It means that you assume good faith when it is required to do so. This is not one of those times. Your "belief" in an editor who has consistently violated arbcom restrictions for the last six months is either ignorant or stupid. Viriditas (talk) 09:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Where is the evidence of socking for the initial block? How do you know there is "private" information? You are not on ArbCom. The IP contacts were identified by CC and for the purpose of lifting the initial block. I think your last sentence "Your "belief" in an editor who has consistently violated arbcom restrictions for the last six months is either ignorant or stupid." lacks WP:Civility, so our discussion is over.--I am One of Many (talk) 09:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I am One of Many. Viriditas, I object to your cheap "no good reason to believe you" remark and your incivility here to I am One (who should probably patiently let it go this once). You're immediately requested to stay off my talkpage, unless of course to notify me you've filed some complaint about me. All, It has been a pet peeve to have my honesty impugned or insinuated about online. Truly, it used to be possible for any random person to elicit a fiery response on this. I was easy like that. But my skin has somewhat thickened. I've been called "sock" scores of times now, probably by a dozen people, most of whom are found socializing daily at WP:ANI, but in no case was that ever true about me. I had to keep gritting my teeth at the beginning, but the experience has somehow made me a calmer person on the point. Colton Cosmic (talk) 09:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Reblocked

Per evident consensus at ANI I have reimposed your block. I suggest that any further appeal be directed at BASC and that you need to disclose your previous account. Since we are back to the status quo I have also turned off your talkpage. Spartaz 10:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I have re-enabled talkpage access - you would be wise to review the commentary on this very talkpage AND on ANI prior to making any comments whatsoever. Access has been granted to allow you to find a way forward towards re-integration with the Misplaced Pages community. Use for any other purpose, or indeed if you choose to continue to refuse to acknowledge the reality of the issues that led to the original block (and subsequent re-block) will likely lead to removal of talkpage access. Think carefully about your way forward (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I think I've read that stuff now. Allow my first comment to be a recommitment to WP:CIV, which I acknowledged as a genuine failing of mine when I appraised myself as an editor some time ago. I believe my edits since my now-undone general unblocking yesterday have lived up to the civility expected of an editor. Allow my second comment to be a "thank you Bwilkins," because my parents certainly taught me that, but fair notification: I plan to request several editors to stay off my talkpage, and our past negative interactions mean you will be on that list. Colton Cosmic (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I cannot say that I recall "negative interactions" between us in the past, but you will recall that you cannot prevent me from being involved in admin-related discussions on this talkpage. As any unblock request is an admin process, it will not be possible to prevent me from being engaged in the entire discussion. If you are unwilling to accept criticism and critique from anyone and everyone, I fear your potential to return to Misplaced Pages has already slipped a few notches (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
There is no "reality" to any of the alleged issues which led to the original block. No evidence at all has been presented which warrants a de facto ban such as this. Refusing to provide the previous username is not grounds for such a block given no evidence of any policy violations in creating the new account. We can't go around assuming someone is guilty without having any evidence supporting it. That flies in the face of WP:AGF and WP:BLOCKINGPOLICY. Nothing in CC's actions in all of the edits he's had since creating this account has given any indication that he is avoiding a previous block or ban. The lynch mob mentality of "he must be guilty" when no one has presented any solid evidence of any kind is seriously saddening to me. If we are going to begin issuing blocks based solely on insinuation and "feelings", when not even WP:DUCK would support it (in this case), we're going the wrong way and totally disregarding all the safety nets and cross checks we've put in place precisely to prevent blocking without any solid evidence. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Bwilkins, I came across this case in ANI yesterday. I occasionally look for interesting cases in ANI and other places to read through to try to better understand how things work here since I've only been here about 4 months. At first I thought that maybe Nihonjoe's account was compromised by Colton Cosmic cosmic because Nihonjoe was basically stating what Colton Cosmic was claiming (and another claim made in ANI). I got sucked into reading everything. I read WP:CLEANSTART, I read all Colton Cosmic's contributions and those IP comments Colton Cosmic identified as his, and everyone else's that I could find. I couldn't find any place where the case was made with evidence of socking. I think since Misplaced Pages is built on openness (except for issues of protection of privacy), it would be helpful to summarize the evidence of socking against Colton Cosmic with diffs demonstrating the socking, which was the basis for the original indefinite block. This would bring everything out into the open and Colton Cosmic can then clearly put forward a defense, which either may turn out to be adequate or inadequate.--I am One of Many (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
You're getting the idea, I am One. You read a lot of noise in my case, but it's rare to come by diffs. Believe me I watch this stuff hawk-like and the first discussion I ever saw from my original blocker, Timotheus Canens, was ten months after: yesterday. What Bwilkins says just below is not really what Timotheus Canens says there, though I'd been happy to get either of these theories last year, so I could've defended myself. I'm open to countering these in greater detail if I have the chance. For now I'll point out Tim argues I had "main" and abusive "alternate" account from the first, while my very first edit says forthrightly something entirely different that I *switched* and never went back for the reasons expressed. Bwilkins' position that I "became a sock" because misbehavior invalidated my cleanstart is sort of an interesting argument. Not to be a smart-ass, but it really is a "transmutation" argument. WP:CLEANSTART as you've read talks about the breaking of a cleanstart because your behavior causes old foes to recognize you, which is different, and didn't happen here. The idea that an hitherto-acceptable cleanstart transmutes to sock when bad behavior reaches a certain level, I think is a lawyerly argument, and not a policy one at this time. It seems to me the behavior would have to be pretty darn bad. It is accurate that I erred on WP:CIV and had 2.5 reverts that were said by an admin to be edit-warring. Colton Cosmic (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
The original blocking admin has provided that information in an open and transparent manner more than once. Colton's defense is simple: he misused cleanstart, which therefore became a SOCK, he refused to accept that, and was blocked. The resolution is and always has been painfully easy - he's simply made it more difficult for himself by choosing the WP:BATTLE path instead of reading the thousands of lines of help people like me have tried to give (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I'll quote what the original blocking admin wrote at the time of blocking:
I've moved your unblock request to the bottom of this page, so it fits chronologically and so that the discussion with Mastcell may inform a review of your block. No comment on the merits, except to note that complaining about sub-standard admins isn't likely to improve your chances of an unblock. Focus on your conduct, please. You admit that your account is a new one created as part of a CLEANSTART for a non-specified older account. If the old account continued to edit, this is a sock and was properly blocked. If not, but this new account continued to edit the same sorts of subjects as the old account, it may still be a violation. How recent was the cleanstart? Has the old account continued to edit? Have you stayed involved with similar subjects? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Is it the questions asked by UltraExactZZ that were the basis of the block? According to WP:CLEANSTART, Colton Cosmic does not have to reveal his/her previous account unless he/she is a banned or currently block user on that account. So all he/she needs to do answer these questions and the case is resolved?--I am One of Many (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
This disclosure will remove the impediment for the unblock to be considered. As I understand it, CC was asked by BASC tpo reveal his previous account in strict confidence and refused. For me that's deeply troubling. Spartaz 18:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it is troubling too, but I also don't know the circumstances of his/her privacy concerns. I followed a cased earlier (I don't recall of the top of my head which it was) in which a member of ArbCom accidentally outed a user, Colton Cosmic's paranoia about revealing that information does not seem unjustified. My concern is what evidence is there for asking that question in the first place given WP:CLEANSTART?--I am One of Many (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This one's for Colton and everyone else watching this page; the thread is Unblocking Colton Cosmic. Yunshui 雲‍水 18:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Huh. Yunshui, you must be nearly the last I'd expect to start that discussion of a general unblock, but thank you. Is it possible that someone dare to issue a temporary unblock and monitor that I may participate on my assurance only at that page and only in that discussion? Yesterday I stayed out of it, and it didn't go entirely well for me. Colton Cosmic (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I think there's something that can be done with the edit filter to allow you access to AN, but I'll have to check with someone who knows (and I'm only online for a short while). In the meantime, post any statements you want to make here and I or another editor can move them over for you. Yunshui 雲‍水 18:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay thanks Yunshui. Spartaz and others commenting here, it may take me sometime to get through the text and answer. Please don't copy-paste large hunks of discussion from last year, if hyper-links or quotes will work. It really makes my talkpage confusing to look at. Colton Cosmic (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Responding to the current WP:AN discussion on me

Okay, I looked at the latest WP:ANI discussion. Spartaz should be informed that past awful experiences with borderline cyberstalkers launching amateur Google investigations have caused me to focus on online privacy, not really for myself (come and get it) but for my friends etc. The most egregious case was off-wiki in some commercial forum, and then grew outside that commercial forum to my alarm. What occurred here was much milder, I'd be hamming to call *it* stalking, though it was indeed WP:OUTING. I was always straightforward that this was why I cleanstarted, from edit #1. Did ArbCom offer me strict assurance of confidentiality of the ID my prior account? Certainly not expressly, if it even could. I gathered they take strong steps to protect the list, but come on, it's a list. Colton Cosmic (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
(Addressing the current WP:ANI discussion). Bbb23: don't tell me to "come clean," I came clean from edit #1. Beeblebrox: Yes I asked you not to post on my talkpage, based on our interactions, which is any editor's prerogative, but that is not "battleground," and I didn't say "shitlist" because I personally view on-wiki profanity as uncivil, and as you know I've tried to improve in that regard. Colton Cosmic (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
(Addressing the current WP:AN discussion. Regentspark: if you read again, you must concede that conforms to WP:CIV. you should give me credit for restraining myself from what I almost wrote. ;) My interactions with Bwilkins have been consistently excruciating from my point of view, but to characterize why would be seen as diverting the focus from my own behavior. I'll risk hyperlinking Jimbo and a "100% concur." Again, I feel it is an editor's prerogative to request particular others to stay off his or her talkpage, and no negative inference should be drawn from that. Colton Cosmic (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
CC, the discussion is on WP:AN. That small point aside, what do you want us to do with your comments here? Above you said you didn't want people to copy and paste, which is fine, but it's not clear what you want with respect to the two paragraphs you just wrote.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh no, with copy and paste of last year's stuff, I referred only to what someone did (in good faith) at this page, right after I cleaned it up. Like I said I want to participate in the WP:AN discussion on me, and would welcome if someone puts my responsive comments just above there for me. Colton Cosmic (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
(Addressing the current WP:AN discussion.) Yunshui, yesterday or was it early this morning was genuinely the first I'd heard or even suspected that ArbCom actually had a suspect in my case. By Silk's words this has influenced them for months, since my first appeal. I was never informed or queried about this. I would've have liked to had the opportunity to defend this point. I'd laugh if I weren't so busy crying. ;) I'm naming this mysterious sanctioned user "Mr. X" and love 'em if they can't take a joke. ;) As to the block evasion, best if I address that separately. It is accurate that most of them were to seek unblock, but a minority were others including(see blue). Colton Cosmic (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 Done--Bbb23 (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
(Addressing the current WP:AN discussion.) Ohnoitsjamie, we had difficulties and I still think Phoenix Jones is in violation of WP:BLP, but I think you must fairly concede that I discussed, and cited policy, and edited in good faith to improve that one and the other I created and you and I worked on together. The fully-disclosed IP block evasion has been I think a reaction to a absolutist and abusist block with broken appeal processes that I feel left me nowhere else to turn. Colton Cosmic (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
(Addressing the current WP:AN discussion.) Mastcell, I've erred in other respects but all of my edits as Colton Cosmic have been upfront and straightforward, I object to your naming me "deceptive and coy." I will find some WP:CIV way to more strongly respond if you continue this line. You state that I started the account with a "preformed enemy list" but that is not true about me. In fact it is a baseless and reputation-damaging statement that I object to. I had no awareness at all in my prior account of Nomoskedacity and Beeblebrox or in fact anyone else at all that I've run into difficulties with, blame aside, as Colton Cosmic. And your elaborate allegation that I am editor "Anythingyouwant" has left idle insult and gone full-blown fever swamp. I don't think I've ever heard of him or her, it doesn't ring a bell at all. My comments regarding WP:3RR and WP:SOCK and any other policy are my own thoughts since I've edited as Colton Cosmic, I never was involved with those previously. Do my comments actually resemble his or hers? I conscientious stay away from abortion, racism, and Palestinian-Israeli topics like dodging molten lava. It ain't me man, and between this and ArbCom's Mr. X, I'm now wondering how much more bizarre this can get. Is Anythingyouwant Arbcom's Mr. X? Did you allege this to ArbCom? Colton Cosmic (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
No, I haven't had any contact with ArbCom about you. My belief that this account is operated by Anythingyouwant is just that - my belief, based on my experience/intuition about sockpuppetry. I've come to trust that intuition, but it's not hard proof; I don't expect ArbCom to trust it, so there would be no point in passing it on them. On the other hand, my belief played a role in my opinion that this account shouldn't be unblocked, so I mentioned it in the WP:AN discussion so that others can evaluate it and draw their own conclusions. MastCell  21:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
(Addressing the current WP:AN discussion.) Amble, who says "he current block therefore has the curious property that it only prevents him from editing because he isn't willing to do the thing he was suspected of doing in the first place." THANK YOU! You may be on to something. I believe in the project, worked on it for years, and I think I am principled on this point. I'm wrongly blocked for socking, so what am I supposed to do? Become one to continue? Allow myself to be kicked around by Timotheus who doesn't even deign to explain or diff his out-of-the-blue indef. for ten months? Didn't have many options, but "hey, I could fully-disclosed IP edit" was one. Colton Cosmic (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
(Addressing the current WP:AN discussion.) I am One of Many, let me try to convert your "comment" to a "support" of my unblock. I do not think that that first response at my page to Mastcell last year was coy. What I perceived was some random editor I may have responded to briefly in a policy discussion but really had no idea who he was zooming in at my page to interrogate me, about, you guessed it, my previous account. No introduction, no explanation, is he even an admin, so I'm like "what gives you the right?" and my comments including "who wants to know?" were meant to be interpreted as "you are being rude, explain yourself." He was of course interrogating me on the WP:CLEANSTART text that says a currently-blocked etc. editor may not cleanstart, but I didn't recognize this at the time. Those edits I meant with some humor and maybe some smart-assedness, but I didn't think I was being coy. Colton Cosmic (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
(Addressing the current WP:AN discussion.) Kww, who says "f people suspect he's a banned account, WP:CLEANSTART doesn't apply." Kww, that is not the policy and it is absurd to hold a cleanstart hostage to the suspicion of others. I think WP:DUCK is an awful (and project-damaging) essay and I muse about parodying it with WP:WITCH for editors with warts on their noses. At any rate, again, I've been forthcoming since edit one and I feel that's no there's no legitimate to suspect that. Colton Cosmic (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
(Addressing the current WP:AN discussion.) Ohnoitsjamie again. You know I hadn't thought about you for a while, except that we worked on Rain City Superhero Movement together and it's pretty good for a starter and would be a lot better and bigger by now if I hadn't been blocked. However, thinking back you were among those interactions where my civility lapsed. I feel you were aggressively editing, and in part I responded to that, but it doesn't excuse me. I do belatedly apologize, and can at least tell you that I some time ago resolved to improve my WP:CIV, and I remind myself of this all the time. In answer, we will still disagree on whether WP:BLP protects the private citizen alter ego of Phoenix Jones, in part I recall for the "privacy of names" section of that policy and in larger part for the protection of his family, but we will do so politely if I am unblocked. Colton Cosmic (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
(Addressing the current WP:AN discussion.) Bbb23, Spartaz, Beeblebrox and others who either say I must disclose my prior account or point at ArbCom/WP:BASC. I've explained my concern for online privacy, the bad idea of disclosing it to the Arb *list* for goodness sake which was actually an express condition for *its* future consideration, laid out with its declining of my appeal. I've pointed to WP:CLEANSTART policy text "If you are not under Arbitration Committee sanctions, you are not required to notify anyone of your clean start." ArbCom overlooked that last in my case, for suspicion of Mr. X or whatever. But the plain language of its block decline make no assertion of conversion of my block to an "ArbCom block," and in fact an arb told me "we have no monopoly on block appeals." So sure you can oppose my appeal because you agree with ArbCom or think they must know something you don't or whatever, but you don't *have* to do that (at present) for reasons of hierarchy. I'm not going to pour you a bigger glass of whine than this, but frankly they never explained anything to me. It was like talking voluminous paragraphs to a silent void that responded ominously 18 days later "declined, and you must reveal us your prior account," and precious little more. You don't have to oppose my unblock based on that. Colton Cosmic (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Colton Cosmic, if we were in an American legal system (and probably others as well), your block would have been thrown out for lack of evidence, but we are not. Like it or not, suspicion is grounds for blocking in the world of Misplaced Pages and the presumption is that you are guilty unless you can prove your innocence. I don’t believe that you should have ever been blocked or that you should have been reblocked, but this does not look like fight you are ever going to win based on principle and lack of evidence. Can you envision any process by which you could reveal information about your previous account, which would also allow you to feel safe that your privacy remains assured? Since nobody here knows your personal circumstances, the risk for you may be too great, but if you think of a way, I suggest proposing it.--I am One of Many (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I am Many of One. Well it seems to me my yielding on the "we're suspicious, never mind why, just fess up your prior account" would set, after all this, a bad precedent for those who find themselves in similar situations. There's is an admin that I unequivocally trust with it, but... Anyhow this is not about legitimate doubt that my prior account is clean, as I've shown, it's a power equation or an authority one. Thanks again for your comments on my behalf. Colton Cosmic (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
(Addressing the current WP:AN discussion.) Dennis Brown, I presume the "privacy" matter you state relates to our emails, which I initiated. Yeah, we had some sparks and public silence there is probably best. I do respect you, including of course for your editor retention project. At any rate, I would say regardless of those things we expressed in the emails, as an admin you're obligated to support or oppose my unblock based on your appraisal not on that, but on whether I or any other editor have been treated squarely under policy. Colton Cosmic (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't dislike you, you actually seem like a nice enough fellow. Nothing in your emails were needed nor formed the foundation of my !vote. Note that I am free to use that info (without disclosing it), per our policy, but honestly, my !vote would have been the same regardless in this case, so they didn't help nor hurt you. The onwiki information lead me to oppose, and to continue to oppose. It isn't personal, nor was it a decision I made flippantly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, wrapping it up

Thanks to Yunshui and Bbb23 for copying some of the above responses to that WP:AN discussion, and I hope someone copies the rest of them. I've maintained WP:CIV for like a zillion words now. I hope the discussion there is enough in my favor to unblock me that way. I've addressed an hundred criticisms, not to mention a couple sketchy theories about these "suspects" as to my previous account. I'm not those, my previous account was only what I always said. So go ahead, whomever, put in your voice over there before someone puts a box marked "closed, declined" around it.

If in fact it is declined though, the "procedural" objections that reversed Nihonjoe's unblock (consultation with original blocking arb, discussion, whatever) have certainly been met. I figure Joe has taken enough fire for me, but perhaps there's someone else of like mind who'll stick his or her neck out. However valid they ever were, the procedural objections are now depleted, I'm back at square 1 or 1a, an unblock with explanation is not ruled out under policy, and a reblock would be nearly unequivocally wheelwarring. And Hades, let no-one assert that unblocks are rightly decided by consensus of the self-selectors at WP:ANI, see applicable guideline.

I was nearly always a content editor, but this whole experience has made me realize, no offense, that policy and administration need development bad. It's my position that my block was wrong from the first, but I figure this or something like it happens routinely to hundreds of editors who just quit as a result and don't resist. So unfathomable project potential is lost. I suppose among the edits I'll make if unblocked is attempt to improve it here and there, a sample of my work here. Colton Cosmic (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

PS: As long as my notoriety has drawn the eyeballs, perhaps a kind or bored admin could consider my unsolicited unblock requests for ArkRe and Youreallycan(see blue). Yes, the template text fields are geared toward self-appeals, but still seem to work whoever does them. No, I found no policy prohibiting on-behalf-of appeals.

  • 3rd party appeals are often dismissed out of hand, regardless of whether policy says this in so many words. This is primarily because it is presumptive and there is no way to know if the primary party will see it (rendering the process moot), nor if they want to be unblocked. There are exceptions, but generally, they don't go far. As for unblocks at ANI/AN, that is "the community", so that is the appropriate step after "talk page" and before "formal arb request". The steps might be a little out of order here, but AN/ANI is exactly the place the community expects to see discussion of potentially contentious actions, and its high visibility allows input from the entire community. For example, almost all ban proposals start at WP:AN. Any time an admin's actions are called into question and it requires a community decision, WP:AN/WP:ANI is the only place we CAN take it. Arb won't even consider it unless it is an emergency or it has already gone to AN/ANI first. This really is the norm. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I hear you as to unwritten customary processes, and the potential weaknesses of a third party (or "on-behalf-of" as I called it) appeal. It seems to me there could be conditions where the appeal should not be dismissed, such as an editor blocked from his or her very own talkpage and thus pretty much unable to personally appeal, or a newbie who's not coming to terms at all with the banners and so forth. It would be good to develop the guideline to address in writing the few cases where the on-behalf-of appeal might be allowable or even persuasive. Colton Cosmic (talk) 03:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Like I said, exceptions are made and policy already doesn't exclude the possibility, it is left to the community to decide if they want to consider a 3rd party appeal. The net result is usually "no". The flexibility is due to the ambiguity of the policy, and is intentional. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Responding to the current WP:AN discussion on me, Phase 2

Again, thanks to my fine friends who are meatpuppeting me ;) over at WP:AN. Don't worry I won't fault you for a concientious "don't unblock" vote. Much. Okay let me get the big gun second:

(Addressing the current WP:AN discussion.) Beeblebrox criticizes the iterative absurdity, as he views my third party block appeals on behalf of ArkRe and Youreallycan entered while I was clearly-disclosed IP block evading. I say those are editors better than I, yet stomped on worse. YRC didn't get the credit he deserves as a long-term great if cantankerous defender of BLPs, and was actually blocked from his own talkpage (!!). ArkRe is just a fine and well-spoken newbie wrongly stomped on for socking, and thoughtful appeals outrageously brusquely and insultingly rejected, abandoned, and left to gather dust. As Dennis says, there's not really written rules, just custom, but I'll go ahead and call a WP:IAR on my specific actions here, secure in my conviction it's a just cause, doesn't take that long to consider and decide, and these two would benefit the project if unblocked. Colton Cosmic (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

(Addressing the current WP:AN discussion.) Responding to SilkTork. First let me get out of the way that while I have disagreed with aspects of his recollection of my ArbCom appeal, I in no way meant to suggest he was deliberately misstating anything, it's more good faith recollection and perception. He is probably correct that he communicated a, paraphrase, "hand over your prior account or your appeal fails" statement, but I may've perceived that as his sentiment, not that of the committee, and perhaps naively thought the other arbs were listening and couldn't possibly overlook the totality of my case. Now, Silk pendantically repeats that I was a nuisance who was therefore reasonably suspected of being a nuisance in my prior account which rendered my no-warn, no-discussion indef. for socking legitimate to correct a nuisance, and beyond that my subsequent clearly disclosed IP edits have been a nuisance and I'm proving a nuisance here today, and my most recent email to ArbCom is a nuisance. I disagree. I feel there was no reasonable suspicion of socking and that my block-evading edits have generally conformed to policy other than being block evasion, and are good faith. Colton Cosmic (talk) 04:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

(Addressing the current WP:AN discussion.) Dennis Brown, who shocks now by saying "his emails to me didn't convince me that he is being completely forthright and honest." What?! Would it have been entirely disagreeable to you to inform me of this sense at the time, why, and before now?! I was completely forthright and honest with you, yea even to a fault. I'll not deviate from defense of my own behavior long, but Dennis you have a weakness of being outrageously insulting without even realizing it, and there are times you just won't listen. Colton Cosmic (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

(Addressing the current WP:AN discussion.) Respond to Ched. WP:CIV is an ongoing focus of improvement for me. I slipped in that edit you linked, and yes, you are correct that it is recent. I can only offer here that I viewed my use of "blockheads" as leavening humor, not insult, that my short attention span reference derived from the statement "such a lengthy appeal of a block is likely to cause most admins to keep on going and find a simpler case to review," which is not my statement, and that my lapse of tone reflected my genuine frustration that this fine and well-spoken new editor had been blocked, insulted, and left to rot. But yes, that doesn't excuse my WP:CIV lapse there. Sorry I lost you, I'll try to swing you back. Colton Cosmic (talk) 04:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

(Addressing the current WP:AN discussion.) Responding to rest of SilkTork comment. Silk, admins should enforce policy. I think your "sers are allowed to edit until there is reasonable concern they are not of benefit to the project" is another expression of an absolutely pernicious and project-damaging philosophy that admins are to make these cosmic judgments as to a Wikipedian's net worth or net detriment to the project. I may have been here as long as you, and I believe the emergence of this thinking, is the biggest danger to what we've participated in building. It is ludicrous to characterize my pre-block infringements as "reasonable" basis for what occurred with me and your repeating that word doesn't make it any catchier or even rhyme. There is even context to that infringement that has never been discussed, for instance my "provocateur" remark to Nomskedascity that Timotheus adored, followed my reading YRC's utterly plaintive call out at Nomo. whom he said had tracked, taunted, and targeted YRC for longer than two years, which I found absolutely credible on other observation. So your parsing of that comment of mine as the policy-free justification "reasonable concern I'm of no benefit" is as parodic as my connection to this Mr. X figure you've been secretly chasing for months, further Timotheus' first policy rationale of my block after ten months is so laughable and opposed to fact on record as that even you will be forced to admit should you bother to read it. So with that criticism, sharp though I think civil, I hope I have emphasized that your function is to apply policy, not appraise editors with ad hoc "keep or reject" judgments that you're wholly unqualified and have no right to make. Colton Cosmic (talk) 05:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Bored Reader? Take my Civil Challenge

If you've nothing better to do ;) find a WP:CIV violation in my many edits since unblocked 11 April. Should I concur, I'll figure out something more controversial and good faith than ever to do. Colton Cosmic (talk) 06:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC) PS: Anyone who says my edits on my own talkpage only read by self-selecting editors "wastes the community's time," as I was told once before blockage here, should do a logic check.

here (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Temporary unblock

I've temporarily unblocked you for the sole purpose of allowing you to participate directly in the WP:AN thread. Note that Special:AbuseFilter/201 will block you from editing any page other than your talk page and AN. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Seems to work. Would you mind making me unblockable there as well, so I can commence to clean house? ;) Colton Cosmic (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)