Misplaced Pages

User talk:Colton Cosmic: Difference between revisions

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.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:13, 12 April 2013 view sourceDangerousPanda (talk | contribs)38,827 edits talkpage access enabled← Previous edit Revision as of 14:40, 12 April 2013 view source Colton Cosmic (talk | contribs)412 edits Reblocked: my commitment to WP:CIVNext edit →
Line 210: Line 210:


: 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 (]<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">]</span>]) 14:13, 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 (]<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">]</span>]) 14:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

:: I think I've read that stuff now. Allow my first comment to be a recommitment to ], 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. ] (]) 14:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:40, 12 April 2013

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

Colton Cosmic (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

This is my second unblock request. Tiderolls declined the first; I explain immediately below. I was no-warn no-discussion blocked for sockpuppetry. The charge is utterly false. The admin shows no awareness in his comment of WP:CLEANSTART and the investigation was evidently done on whim or idle suspicion. Colton Cosmic (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per CLEANSTART, Admin Bwilkins made an offer to unblock - one that preserved your privacy and addressed the concerns that caused the block in the first place. You declined, repeatedly. Accordingly, and as per Bwilkins, I'm declining the block and locking this page. If you wish to appeal your block, you will need to follow the instructions at WP:UTRS. Best, UltraExactZZ ~ Did 13:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


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

Tiderolls said "our request does not address the issue that resulted in your block; yes, you deny the sockpuppetry and advocate the misinterpretation of WP:CLEANSTART but weaken your position with unsubstantiated allegations of malfeasance and/or negligence." Tiderolls, I can't show regret and pledge to reform my socking behavior, much as it might help my unblock case, because I did not sock in the first place. I do not think I "advocated the misinterpretation of WP:CLEANSTART" at all (and you didn't explain this position at all). The policies were somewhat different when I started editing under this user ID, but I think it was a valid cleanstart then and now. I do not think "investigation was evidently done on whim or idle suspicion" necessarily amounts to an "allegation of malfeasance and/or negligence," but in my opinion it's he not I that can clarify this. He has made the allegation against me, you should not try to make it vice versa. Colton Cosmic (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, these admins aren't giving me much to go on (banned for sockpuppetry "huh?!" advocating the misinterpretation "huh?!). But if the issue is really interpretation of WP:CLEANSTART, and they "interpret" that I should not only *disclose* my former account (which I did) but also *name it and point to it* (which I didn't), you can't possibly interpret it that way. Because the policy clearly, straight up front, says "harassment" is one of the two main reasons people seek cleanstart. So if you're telling the user to name and point to her or his previous account, you're telling her or him to wave at the bully and say "here I am, come see me over here." I was not bullied, bullies can go jump in a lake, they mean little to me except for their harming of others, the issue with me was privacy by pants-leg sniffing creepy crawlies who have nothing better to do than Google me to death, and post what they got. But you can't possibly read WP:CLEANSTART's word "disclose" as requiring a user to name and point to her or his previous account. Again, kind admin, I am sorry you have to read this novel, blame "Timotheus Canens" and Tiderolls, not me. Colton Cosmic (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC) PS: "The two most common reasons for wanting a clean start are to make a fresh start after recognizing past mistakes, and to avoid harassment."

I'm Colton Cosmic. I had a previous Misplaced Pages account but I'm switching to this because of privacy considerations. In my previous account I found that certain among editors whose style tended towards the adversarial went so far as to engage in "opposition research," which is to say one used the dominant search engine not to locate reliable sources that countered my edits on the article in question, but rather to attempt to discredit me personally, and under my actual name. The switch is not specifically about that incident, but rather the privacy considerations it called to my attention.

I looked over the Misplaced Pages policies regarding accounts after one's first and they did not really account for my situation. However I think what I'm doing is entirely in tune with the Misplaced Pages project, with its goals and spirit and morals. To assuage any concerns, I hereby state that I will not edit any article under this account that I edited under the previous, neither will I even access the previous account except should there be unforeseen circumstance, in which case I will make notification here, at this page.

What else? I really cared about the articles I edited so it has an effect on me to leave them behind (though I still will look at them now and then). But rather than melancholy, I see it as renewing, like in Logan's Run or whatever. Colton Cosmic (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

what violation?

What BLP violation do you think is being violated? References I added back when this discussion came up, include a news site with video showing him unmasking and revealing his true identity at a press conference before reporters. Dream Focus 19:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, please be aware of WP:3RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Your editing is now under discussion here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

He or she filed a trumped-up and frivolous WP:3RR complaint against me that met with failure, not even a warning. The person evidently has made an hobby of such tattling. Perhaps one day it'll be well and justly met with WP:BOOMERANG. Colton Cosmic (talk) 10:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the complaint was in no way frivolous; you are, in fact, edit warring, and you're doing so in a way that falls under disruptive editing, as at least 3 editors clearly disagree with your changes to the page—regardless of how correct or well-sourced you believe them to be. You can either choose dispute resolution, including using the article's talk page to discuss what you'd like to change and establishing consensus for the changes, or risk getting blocked. --slakr 21:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I advised Slakr on his talkpage that the breakout of the editors who, even arguably, opined whether Phoenix Jones should be categoried under "superhero" was two against two, rather than what Slakr said. I invited Slakr to acknowledge this on my talkpage, but as yet he has not done so. Colton Cosmic (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Pj quick.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pj quick.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Rcsm 5.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Rcsm 5.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Misplaced Pages uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I called you "provocateur" for your pattern of seeking blocks of others and asked you, not really rhetorically, whether you had ever contributed a productive edit. I think whether that was "personal attack" under policy depends not only on my words but also on your edit history. (for record, the second content linked to has been abridged). Please stay off of my talkpage except to advise me when you lodge complaints against me. Colton Cosmic (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
If you interacted with Nomoskedasticity under your prior account it could be argued you're socking by commenting on them at ANI -- in any event let's keep the focus in the ANI thread on YRC and please refrain from similar comments in the future. Nobody Ent 21:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I did not interact w. Nomo. under my prior account. Colton Cosmic (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

About my potential block

I've faulted Misplaced Pages admins recently, on grounds I say I've explained with reasoned opinion and pointing to Misplaced Pages rules. However I realize that criticizing admins comes with some risk, because of an absence of admin accountability, as well the persistence of certain admins to reflexively come to the aid of their fellows that make questionable decisions. There exist sub-standard admins. Not to yada yada yada it up and subtract from whatever your attention span is after that, but if I am blocked, please look at my edit record and consider my post-script right here. Colton Cosmic (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC) PS: Who's administering the admins?

Speaking of your edit record, was your previous account subject to any editing restrictions from ArbCom or the community? MastCell  19:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
MastCell, who wants to know? Colton Cosmic (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Me, obviously. MastCell  21:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Do you have an arrest record? Colton Cosmic (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
No. Was your previous account subject to any editing restrictions from ArbCom or the community? MastCell  23:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
No. Colton Cosmic (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Colton Cosmic (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I was no-warn no-discussion blocked for sockpuppetry. The charge is utterly false. The admin (it's "Timotheus Canens")shows no awareness in his comment of WP:CLEANSTART and the investigation was evidently done on whim or idle suspicion. Repeating myself a bit, but you can look at all the chronological stuff at the bottom. Yeah, I deleted a guy's comments who wants to hang out here for some reason even after I asked him to go (he says I'm "choosing my ban," which I disagree with) but I put his comments back, it's all there.

Decline reason:

Your request does not address the issue that resulted in your block; yes, you deny the sockpuppetry and advocate the misinterpretation of WP:CLEANSTART but weaken your position with unsubstantiated allegations of malfeasance and/or negligence. Tiderolls 03:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


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

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. I also 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 ~ Did 14:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Ultraexactzz, fair enough but I reserve the option to organize my talk page as I see fit as long as I am not blocked from doing so. My observation (I don't know if it was a complaint) about sub-standard admins occurred before my block. In answer to your questions, the recentness of the cleanstart is of course measured from my first edit under this user ID. The answer to whether the old account has continued to edit is contained up above, and I stand by that. I don't mind repeating myself now and then: "To assuage any concerns, I hereby state that I will not edit any article under this account that I edited under the previous, neither will I even access the previous account except should there be unforeseen circumstance, in which case I will make notification here, at this page." Lastly, "have I stayed involved with similar subjects..." wow. I don't think so, I think my edits have been on wholly dissimilar subjects, but that language is vague, and over time if I were allowed to, you'd probably be able to argue some sort of connection. Colton Cosmic (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
WP:CLEANSTART specifically enjoins editors to avoid contentious and highly scrutinized areas. In your first couple dozen edits with this account, you edit-warred on a controversial BLP, challenged a checkuser's findings of sockpuppetry and then made a federal case of it on the related policy talkpage, attacked an essay as "useless belly-gazing utterly defective", and attacked another editor in highly personal terms on AN/I (). That's not exactly a convincing effort at the sort of low-profile clean start envisioned in policy.

But just to be clear: your previous account(s) had no involvement in earlier arguments about the "bright line" 3RR rule at Misplaced Pages talk:Edit warring? MastCell  21:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Mastcell has gone through my edit record, ignoring the positive to spotlight things he thinks show me in a bad light, but I do give him credit for at least hyperlinking those comments, which I suggest you read before accepting his argumentative characterizations of them. Colton Cosmic (talk) 11:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC) PS: As well, the reason I "edit-warred" (I say it consisted of two reverts) on the BLP he's talking about was to protect the living person, who is a private person, and his family, and I did not realize the article was "controversial" at the time, if it was. Colton Cosmic (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
It is accurate I used those words about WP:ROPE essay but I never meant anything personal by it, mistaking it for policy or guideline, and I apologized after to the essay author. And I realized his or her essay was more than I thought on first read. Colton Cosmic (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC) PS: Thank you for your attention, but shut up MastCell, or confirm the ban. Colton Cosmic (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
If you're serious about wanting to edit again, send an e-mail to your most-trusted admin and give full disclosure of your previous incarnation(s) here. ←Baseball Bugs carrots23:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey, Baseball Bugs, I choose not to do that. If you're an admin, go ahead and confirm the ban if you agree w. it. Colton Cosmic (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, nor do I understand what you mean by "confirm the ban". In any case, I do have a short list of admins I consider trustworthy enough to tell things in confidence. If you want to edit here again, you ought to give that idea some consideration. ←Baseball Bugs carrots23:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Baseball, this discussion is about whether I will be banned from Misplaced Pages forever on the basis of what Timotheus Canens said. Colton Cosmic (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
No, the question is, "How badly do you want to edit wikipedia?" Talk to an admin you trust, behind the scenes, and let them determine the truth of the matter. ←Baseball Bugs carrots00:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Baseball, please go back to whatever you were doing and do not comment on my talk page again. Colton Cosmic (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Roger. It's your funeral. ←Baseball Bugs carrots01:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Baseball, if it is (which may be the case), you were not invited. Colton Cosmic (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
If you get banned, it's by your own choosing. ←Baseball Bugs carrots01:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Baseball told me "If you get banned, it's by your own choosing." But I believe it's just some individual who doesn't know or care to know I was banned a couple days ago. Colton Cosmic (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. It was not my intention to create WP:DRAMA (it's essay, not guideline, not policy). I wanted to make productive contributions and have been pulled, or goaded, into this stuff. I'm letting everyone speak on my talkpage, even after I've asked one of them not to (he says rather than contesting my permanent block, which he says I chose, I should be privately lobbying an admin, such as the most trusted ones he keeps on a shortlist). I guess I'll put all this in a darn archive after. Sorry you have to endure it presently.

What else? I continue to contest my block, which was premised on Timotheus Canens' false accusation of sockpuppetry, and occurred without warning or discussion. Colton Cosmic (talk) 11:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I may be willing to unblock as per WP:CLEANSTART, under the following conditions:
  1. you e-mail me, and advise me of your previous account
  2. that account was not currently blocked
  3. any restrictions on that account will be immediately transferred to this one
  4. this new account has NOT contributed to articles in the same subjects as the previous one, broadly construed (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Bwilkins, heh, I am happy to have you stalking my talkpage ;) and genuinely grateful for your attention to this important matter. 1) I tried to email you but I don't know your email address. But it's okay, I can answer you right here. 2) My previous account was not blocked or warned or anything like "Arb-Com" penalized whatever the heck that is, I just want to edit. 3) There were never any restrictions on that account (you're looking at me, but perhaps you should be looking at this "Timotheus Canens" entity, 4) I don't think I have edited articles in the same subjects as the previous, broadly construed. Please unban me right away. Colton Cosmic (talk) 07:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Nope. Without the names of all previous accounts, you have not lived up to your end of the bargain. It's deadly simple to e-mail me from my usertalk page. And obviously, any request that even remotely tries to deflect any "blame" from yourself onto another editor fails from the start. I'm willing to extend this offer once more - any BS like the above, and it's withdrawn and this talkpage is locked so that you don't waste any more of the community's time. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I like your talkpage but you're just talking rubbish, Canadian. I am not and will never be intimidated by your "talkpage is locked" threat. Colton Cosmic (talk) 10:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh heck, I realized that I should object to any facts-aware admin, before I am banned ("Timotheus Canens" and even my talkpage is prohibited, by "BWilkins" that it's a lie, I never sockpuppeted. Colton Cosmic (talk) 11:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
You've been given a very reasonable path to get unblocked, and an admin willing to do that unblocking; you've rebuffed him. So, accordingly, I've locked this page. Visit WP:UTRS if you wish to appeal. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 13:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

UTRS

They applied through UTRS but gave a fake email address. As UTRS works via email that doesn't work. Secretlondon (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking about this editor today and found myself wondering: what would prevent someone from taking up the offer BWilkins made by finding a dormant account that actually belonged to someone else and claiming (falsely) that that was one's old account? I was going to hold my tongue -- but having seen this latest post I figure it might be worth asking. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
They said they couldn't find the link to email BWilkins. They wouldn't give real email address as they hadn't been given a real one from Misplaced Pages. Secretlondon (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
It's becoming rather difficult to conclude that this account is doing anything other than lying to us and wasting our time. Perhaps there's some elaborate hypothetical benign rationale one could construct for this account's behavior, but it's getting a bit far-fetched. MastCell  00:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

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 - © 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  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 - © 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  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 - © 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 - © 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)