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 Colton Cosmic (talk | contribs) at 20:43, 3 February 2014 (→Apologies: not needed but accepted anyway). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:43, 3 February 2014 by Colton Cosmic (talk | contribs) (→Apologies: not needed but accepted anyway)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Archive 1 Archive 2

Here we go

Okay, Colton, after discussing it with Spartaz, I've restored your talk page access (but not email). Please tread lightly: as I've told you, please leave the past in the past anf try to focus on what you're going to do in the future. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Writ Keeper. I think our experiences on the project affect the way we proceed on it, so the past is always with us like that. I realize the need to proceed with caution though. I hope that you will continue to pay attention and comment your opposition if I get blocked even while treading lightly. I feel like I need a bodyguard around here. Colton Cosmic (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Please unwatch my talk and user pages

I saw on a statistics page where 35 Misplaced Pages users have watchlisted my talkpage. I know that these are the vast majority WP:AN/ANI regulars and "sockpuppet investigators." I am not averse to having my edits scrutinized, but it is quite an amount of overkill. It makes me a little uncomfortable as well. I would prefer my Misplaced Pages experience to go in another direction, and interact with other types of users.

So, for those of you who will honor the wishes of an editor in such a regard: please unwatchlist my talk and user pages. Rest assured there will be enough of you left to hold me to account, if I mess up, even minutely.

Of course, if our interactions have been entirely friendly, on content creation and the like, or if you are among those who've taken my part in blocking discussions, this doesn't apply to you, and you should please stick around. Colton Cosmic (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request to Ixfd64, NawlinWiki, and Yamla

@Ixfd64, NawlinWiki, and Yamla: Asking for an unblock dialogue, with all three or any of you. Colton Cosmic (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

This requests the above three administrators to review my permanent block and discuss it with me as to being unblocked. The reason I ask for discussion is that I've asked others that came back with what I feel is snap judgement "nope" and often based on a misconception that they don't allow me to respond to. For instance Moe Epsilon recently said I couldn't be unblocked by an administrator because I'm under Arbcom sanctions, but I am not and have never been under Arbcom sanctions. And then I noticed he was praised, non-sarcastically, by some third person for responding to me so correctly. So you three, if you are willing to consider my case, ask me something at least once, or criticize me at least once giving me a chance to respond, thus having a dialogue. And after that I'll try not to fault you should we reach a negative outcome.

I was permanently blocked in May 2012, without warning or discussion, by an administrator that alleged sockpuppetry. I didn't do it. I never did it. I had a single prior account that I abandoned for privacy reasons, never going back. I described this all quite forthrightly in my very first edit as Colton Cosmic. I tried to appeal, but it didn't go well. I was aggravated because my honesty was being impugned and my blocker wasn't even explaining himself. I was not a master block appealer nor did I have WP:AN/ANI-like experience in seeing others handle blocks, because in my former account I was near-exclusively a content creator. A lot of people piled on me with criticism and many figured my blocker, a "sockpuppet investigator," had secret evidence.

My prior account I had for five or six years and I created several articles and greatly contributed to many more. I was never warned, sanctioned, blocked, or banned. In my few short weeks as Colton Cosmic, I at least created Rain City Superhero Movement which was twice directly-linked by Slate.com and quoted by morning newscaster Robin Meade on HLN. My point is that I am a constructive editor. On the other hand much has been made of a single edit in which I called another editor "provocateur," but the context has been missed. The editor I criticized had tracked, taunted, and targeted another editor for two years. I viewed myself as confronting a cyberbully. I realize I was uncivil, and that such things need to be handled in better ways, but that diff is not representative of the majority of my edits, and it is surely not grounds for a permanent block. Anyhow, this is hopefully enough to start the dialogue with you three. Please consider unblocking me. I don't want to type walls of text, but I will answer anything you question or criticize me with. Colton Cosmic (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Ixfd64, that's just it: there is no Arbcom case. I did appeal my block via email to Arbcom (declined without explanation) but there never were sanctions or anything. Colton Cosmic (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Since you mentioned me, Colton, I felt like I needed to respond. No, you were not under sanctions on this account, for which I was mistaken. However, I was confused due to the previous dialogue on your talk page, a majority of which you can find here at the top of the page. You have appealed to ArbCom for an unblock before. According to @SilkTork:
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.
There was also a follow-up from SilkTork which I'll post here:
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 sanctioned user. In correspondence with the user they agreed this was a second account, but refused to reveal to ArbCom what the previous account was.
Hopefully we can get SilkTork to comment further. I already know you refuted being sanctioned previously, as given by the rest of the thread. However, ArbCom did tell you not to sock as an IP address, and appeal at a later time. Despite this, you have repeatedly, and I mean repeatedly, hopped IP address again and again begging for an unblock. Given they suspected you to be a returning sanctioned account, and you never admitted to what account that was, is the reason why you were never unblocked (especially since they thought you were sanctioned). Like I said before, appealing to ArbCom is your best choice here, not to administrators, and reveal that account to them in private. That will be a good step forward. Administrators aren't really within their power to override the consensus of ArbCom, that is what ArbCom was created for. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 17:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Moe, I am hoping to keep it focused to the trio I asked, but yes, you are certainly within your rights since I mentioned you. In the first quote you give Arbcom (by the way that's just Silktork signing "Arbcom," no other arb was involved or considered it) set the conditions for me applying again *to Arbcom*. Any other administrator may still consider unblocking under WP:UNBLOCK and an arb specifically told me that: "we have no monopoly on block appeals." In the second part you quote, yeah he's chasing some phantom sanctioned user. It's not me, but I can't dispute secret evidence, and he won't say what his reasons are. It's not any overriding of Arbcom to unblock me. Colton Cosmic (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You were unblocked by Nihonjoe previously though, and it was agreed from the wider community that you should be re-blocked, large in part because of your appeal to ArbCom being unsuccessful and the lack of supporting evidence from Nihonjoe. Like I was implying, any unblock from a single administrator is going to wind up in another discussion at the administrator's noticeboard because the unblock would be subverting a previous unblock request and a community discussion which resulted in your re-block. That is why I feel ArbCom is the best place to go. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 18:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Moe, you have now said your piece twice, and I hope you let me answer it and then you leave the discussion to those I've asked, and me. The WP:AN/ANI action you link represented the view there that @Nihonjoe: unblocked without enough public advance discussion, say at my talkpage. It had nothing to do with me, because all I said during the short duration of that unblock was "I'll try to live up to Nihonjoe's faith in me." By the way, Joe did the most thorough examination of my case that anyone has.. No-one doing those fly-by comments at WP:AN/ANI did anything like that. Colton Cosmic (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

@Ixfd64, NawlinWiki, and Yamla: Any comment or question? I've got a lot of solid contributions I'd like to make to the project, if unblocked. I do not plan to ping you again after this. Colton Cosmic (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

@Kafziel: how about you, guy? Consider unblocking? Because I didn't do it. I wrote you here: . I see where you're currently aggrieved by the behavior of Silktork and Arbcom. I've walked in those shoes. Colton Cosmic (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why you are asking for me to be involved here. Although I was a very active Misplaced Pages user and admin (mostly, reverting vandalism) some years ago, that's really no longer the case, though I still do make some edits. Perhaps I dealt with you before? I can find no record in your current account (though I may have missed it), though it looks like you attempted a clean-start, so perhaps I dealt with you before? If so, I can't remember who you were, and you seem unwilling to reveal your prior identity (which you are under no obligation to do). If you would like to reveal to me in confidence what interactions I have had with you in the past, I can assure you I would not reveal that information to anyone else. Again, though, you are not obligated to do so. I'm unhappy unilaterally unblocking you, especially as it appears to me that the community consensus is to leave you blocked (though I freely admit I may be misreading; perhaps consensus is 'for now, where now = April 2013'. I would suggest that if you have refrained from editing via IP addresses or other accounts for a reasonable period of time (perhaps six months?), it may be appropriate to request a review of your case. Whether that's through ARBCOM or through the admin noticeboard, I'm not sure. If I can help get this process started, please let me know. I'm also quite willing to go into more detail here, if you like. Please understand, I'm not trying to impose anything on you and if you read anything I have written as an attempt to do that, my apologies in advance for my poor wording. --Yamla (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Yamla, first, your communication is fine, so certainly no reason to apologize and I say "thank you very much" for looking into my case. We don't know each other from prior editing. I came across you, and the other two, on a statistics page that showed you had done a lot of unblocks. I doublechecked that you were recently active. I disagree that "community consensus" is against unblocking me. The community is all the Misplaced Pages editors. If you're thinking of WP:AN/ANI, that is, at least in very large part, a self-selecting group of drama mongers and blockaholics that enjoys passing judgement on people. It is not representative of "the community." Neither did it leave me blocked by "consensus," the count was like nineteen against and six in my favor. I feel that I should be handled in accordance with evidence and policy, and not because of some "vote him off the island" proceeding by WP:AN/ANI.
You are probably referring to WP:OFFER essay. That is a repentance model in which one admits his or her trangressions, takes a long break, and pledges to do better. It doesn't work for me, in part because I cannot admit socking, because I never socked. Shall I lie? As well, there have been long breaks I have taken (though not six months) but it hasn't helped me get unblocked. As well, there are those administrators who say they will fight any application of WP:OFFER in my case. As well, I have already been blocked like 22 months. I have a lot to contribute without taking a break for another six.
I came to you for help, because I enjoyed editing Misplaced Pages and hope to do so again. I ask for your help now, and not in six months. You may know at least one thing about me for sure: I am blocked for socking but never socked. If you help me, you will not be embarrassed on that score. If you object particularly to my clearly-identified block evasion via raw IP, I call to your attention that I only ever did that (I think) when my talkpage was blocked to me. I believe I had no other genuine choice to seek appeal but to IP block evade. I hear you that, no matter the merits my case, you are unhappy to act unilaterally. If you want to seek broader community opinion on me, may I suggest opening an RFC/U (under "Creation"). No matter your decision, I thank you for responding. Colton Cosmic (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Attempt to raise unblock dialogue with Melchoir, Maxim, and EdChem

@Melchoir, Maxim, and EdChem: Looking to engage in an unblock discussion with each or any of you. I tried this above with three others, but it's been silent a couple days. If any of them still want to chime in, particularly Yamla, I welcome it, but the silence was getting to me. I came across Melchoir and Maxim semi-randomly: went to the list of administrators and looked under "M" about the middle of the alphabet. Noticed Melchoir worked on the "Infinite Monkey Theorem" (I feel like one sometimes) and Maxim was into ice hockey which is cool. EdChem is not an administrator, but I saw him making carefully-thought comments at an arbitration page, maybe he has some ideas for me, and he could still raise me at RFC/U if he chose, or even the dreadful WP:AN/ANI.

Guys, I'll try to make this doubly short. There's a volume immediately above, and volumes more if you research it. I was permanently blocked without warning or explanation in May 2012 by Timotheus Canens. He clicked a twinkle button that pointed to WP:SOCK with some auto-generated text. I never socked Misplaced Pages. I had a single prior account that I abandoned for privacy reasons, never going back. In that account I created seven or eight articles and greatly contributed to many more. In my few short weeks as Colton Cosmic, I at least authored Rain City Superhero Movement. Therefore, I consider myself a constructive editor. A lot of reflexive blockers from WP:AN/ANI piled on me after my block. There was plenty of suspicion and accusation and frankly negative spin on my edits, especially from Mastcell, who gave the closing argument for the prosecution in my case (I didn't get ;) a defense attorney).

The singular edit a lot of my critics gravitate to, and the one Timotheus Canens pointed to when he finally spoke, ten months after my block is this: . Well, heck looking at the diff now, I don't know exactly which part he refers to but others have zeroed in on the comment where I called Nomoskedasticity a "provocateur," etc. Frankly, worse things are said by WP:AN/ANI regulars every hour, but it is accurate I was uncivil. But the context was I had just recently read, I thought very reliably, that Nomo. had tracked, taunted, and targeted Youreallycan for fully two years. I viewed myself as confronting a bully. I was wrong to be uncivil, but it doesn't make me a sock or warrant a permanent block. In closing, I hope that each of you will consider taking my part in getting me unblocked, or at least tell me why not. Colton Cosmic (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Colton Cosmic, I appreciate your kind comments on my ArbCom page comments, it's nice to see that some people read and consider my input. I'm not sure what can be done here, your block log is pretty long considering the number of edits you have made. You are perfectly entitled to withhold the name of a cleanstart prior account, but you have clearly used IPs in technical violation of WP:SOCK. Most admins will accept that there is a problem given TC's position as an Arbitrator and the BASC appeal. My advice would be to talk about the future, what you would like to edit, etc, rather than fighting over the past. EdChem (talk) 12:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Edchem. Thank you for reading up a bit on it. My block log appears long but it is because of ping pong of my appeals not separate offenses. The reason I don't have a great number of edits is because I was permanently blocked just a month and an half or whatever into my new account. You are the first really to describe my IP-based block evasion as "technical violation of WP:SOCK" which is accurate given the unlimited definition currently there. But there is already policy governing block evasion (WP:EVADE) and it is disingenuous (by those who do not specify "technical violation") to call it sockpuppetry. I am happy to talk about what I'd like to edit in the future! I told Newyorkbrad, quite sincerely, "trees" when he asked, giving him an example of a certain tree, but he never got back to me after that. I would write stuff on the real-life superhero phenomenon which I did more than a little of before my block. Also, my unique experiences with the blocking, administrative, and policy sides of Misplaced Pages have enlightened me on some constructive changes I'd try to make to policy and the like. In regard to "fighting over the past" I would LOVE to stop revisiting all that, but it comes up unavoidably in unblock discussion. If you want to help me make it to the future, like you say, then please start an RFC/U (on my request if anyone asks). A sympathetic administrator could then (potentially, if it doesn't go awfully) point to that in unblocking me. Colton Cosmic (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

@Melchoir, Maxim, and EdChem: Any comment? I do not plan to ping you further. Whatever all the noise and walls of text signify, I did not do what I am blocked for. I have I think good contributions to make if anyone is brave enough to help me. Colton Cosmic (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Colton, I think that you have not understood some of what I was trying to say, so please allow me to clarify:

  • I recognise that your block log length reflects fiddling with the settings but many editors / admins will look at that length and a couple of hundred edits total and form a view of trouble maker. Fair? No. Realistic? Sadly, yes.
  • Yes, you have violated SOCK in a technical sense, but many will say that a technical violation is a violation, and it makes the suggestion you have engaged in other sock puppetry much more immediately convincing. You have a respected admin and arbitrator having stated you have socked, and a denied appeal implying sock. Even if that is all untrue (I have no idea), continuing to argue about it is going to be seen as disruptive. I think you have a better chance if you put the past in the past, declare that you won't dispute about it any longer (even while maintaining you admit to no wrong-doing if you must) and focus on the future.
  • I don't understand what you are looking for in an RfC/U - I don't think one can be held on an indefinitely-blocked editor, nor do I think it would be well-received.
  • If you want to show what you can and want to do, maybe write a new article here or on a sub-page (if you can access them) then ask for it to be moved to AfC space for evaluation. Rather than saying you can make a contribution, show that you can. I have no idea whether you can get unblocked with a different approach from your present one, but I am confident that you won't be with the present approach.

These are my thoughts - feel free to agree or disagree. I understand the feeling of injustice, the problem is that Misplaced Pages doesn't do justice. If your goal is to be unblocked, then a pragmatic approach might be more effective.  :) EdChem (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I have given examples above that I am a constructive editor. "Trouble maker" is quite an insult. Any administrator that forms such a snap judgement based on glancing at the log and number of edits is unworthy of the tools. Being labeled a sock is an imputation of dishonesty and I won't roll over and accept it.
  • I just told you what I'd do in the future, you don't need to keep repeating the same advice when I just followed it.
  • I just told you what I'm looking for in an RFC/U: broader community opinion on me beyond the regulars at WP:AN/ANI, in order to potentially assist the unblocking administrator. I don't know where you got the idea that a blocked editor is ineligible for an RFC/U. The page says "A user-conduct RfC (RFC/U) is for discussing specific users who have violated Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines." Am I a "non-person" in your eyes?
  • You suggest I write an article to show what I can do. I point you to Rain City Superhero Movement. Not meaning to boast but it was twice-directly linked by Slate.com and quoted by newscaster Robin Meade on U.S. national television program Morning Express.
Ed, I feel your "Misplaced Pages doesn't do justice" assertion is a rather self-fulfilling attitude. It is indeed supposed to be a policy-based environment, and policy says I can't be no-warn, no-discussion, no-evidence blocked, no matter how much you "respect" my blocker. It seems pretty clear I'm not going to win you over, so I'll go on to the next person, but thanks for your time anyway. Colton Cosmic (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Colton, please forgive my poorly expressed thoughts, but for the record I did not say that I think you are a trouble maker. I did not intend to insult you, and I apologise. I agree with you that snap judgements are poor form, but I also recognise that they are a reality here on wiki. Regarding the socking claims, I was actually thinking of something like an Alford plea, asserting that others find the evidence persuasive and that you maintain innocence but in any event have been punished. I suggested writing an article so you could offer it as evidence of the value in unblocking you. I was unaware of your work being cited by Slate, congratulations - you can use it to show valuable contributions in the past, that is a helpful point to make. Regarding "non-person", I was offended by JClemens' "not a Wikipedian remark" and would never treat anyone as a non-person. I am disappointed you could think that of me, especially as I am trying to be helpful. Regarding "Misplaced Pages doesn't do justice", perhaps my attitude reflects my disillusionment about what happens. I wish I could say that Misplaced Pages has a good record of admitting and correcting errors and considering editors as individuals who can be harmed, but I don't believe these are true. They should be true, but they are not. Not being an admin, I cannot unblock you. I could open an RfC/U, though I have never done so before, but I don't know how it could be certified and I still think it would get a very frosty response. Regards, EdChem (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Ed, oh that is okay, don't worry about it. Apology not needed, but accepted anyway. I would tell you that using expressions like "many would consider you a troublemaker" is going to imply agreement if you don't throw in a "but not me." Sorry to suggest that you might consider me a non-person. Kww is among those administrators that have stated blockees are non-persons, so it's not something I just pulled from air. GB_fan says below he's willing to handle an RFC/U on my request so let's just go that route. Peace. Colton Cosmic (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
"Virtual" makes a great difference to me; CC really should've included all qualifiers. Tiderolls 01:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
The attempt to drag a different admin into some disagreement, while also at the same time very slightly mis-representing that admin's comments, certainly doesn't bode well for Colton Cosmic's ability to move on from the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that got them blocked in the first place. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Kww didn't object to the attribution, why should you two. There's no great difference between "virtual non-person" and "non-person" in the context, besides he just reiterated it without the "virtual" himself. I wasn't trying to "drag someone into" to anything, I was explaining where I was coming from to Ed, who was fretting about it. I didn't misrepresent anything, "very slightly" or otherwise, and certainly not intentionally. Does one misrepresent the barn owl by describing it as an owl? Of course not. It's not battleground behavior, and I wasn't blocked for that, I was blocked on allegation socking, look at the log. Tiderolls, since you are all about explaining things fully now, please explain your "interpretation" of WP:CLEANSTART that means I didn't qualify for it, since you didn't bother to when you declined my block appeal. Colton Cosmic (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Another statement lacking in diffs. My decline stated you were advocating the misinterpretation of CLEANSTART by TC. You should understand that by continuing to claim negligence and malfeasance on the part of others does not serve your case well. This is the point that you have missed since day one; until you address the issue of your behavior there is nothing that can be done. Tiderolls 13:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Tiderolls, that was a simple, easily checkable matter that both you and I are well aware of, and it's silly to expect roboticly-provided diffs. Your assertion that by simply asking you to explain your interpretation of WP:CLEANSTART I therefore maligned you as negligent and malfeasant can only be described as hypersensitive. If you want to decline my block on the basis "advocating the misinterpretation of WP:CLEANSTART," it is incumbent on you under WP:ADMIN (communication duty) to say just how, and you can do that either by critiquing specifically how I did it wrong, or giving your interpretation on how it is done right. I have long acknowledged my behavioral flaws regarding WP:CIV and pledged to improve, any fair reading of my comments will see that admission consistently, what I will not do is acknowledge WP:SOCK, which is what I am blocked for. Colton Cosmic (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC) PS: this conversation doesn't seem to be going anywhere productive, would you do me the courtesy of having the last word on my own talkpage?

Of course I will not, since the your "last word" is to repeat your accusation that my decline stated you misinterpreted CLEANSTART. When the diff demonstrates that I did not post what you said I posted and when the diff demonstrates that Kww did not post what you said he posted, then it's not silly. Now, your next post will be the last word, at least with regard to this thread, as I have seen all I need to see. Tiderolls 14:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, don't walk away mad. I correctly described what you and Kww wrote, though perhaps not what you, Tiderolls, meant. Let's try this: what do you mean by the word "advocate?" And was or was not my transition to a new account for privacy purposes authorized by WP:CLEANSTART, and why or why not? Colton Cosmic (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
WP:CLEANSTART is still open to you, CC, and I believe it is the only path open to you. Start a new account without mentioning it here, never mention the Colton Cosmic account again, don't continue your feud with the admins that originally blocked you; in short, do nothing that would ever allow anyone to connect the account to the Colton Cosmic account, and you will be permitted to edit using that account. That you don't seem to have done so is precisely why I advocate maintaining your block -- you seem far more interested in calling attention to what you perceive as the injustice that has been done to you than you are in actually editing.—Kww(talk) 16:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Kww, no it is not open to me. It says, in a complete and unequivocal sentence, "A clean start is not permitted if there are active bans, blocks or sanctions (including, but not limited to those listed here) in place against the old account." Please consider the possibility that you are also wrong about my motives. I'm not engaged in personal attention seeking by desire or natural inclination, my purpose is to be unblocked so that I can contribute to the project like I did for six or seven years, and I have to go on about "me" to achieve that. If you are willing to reevaluate your take on me, have a look under "Response" in the RFC/U draft (here () for legibility, but the diff might break if the draft is changed, dunno). Colton Cosmic (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Certainly, if you were ever caught you would be blocked again for block evasion. No doubt about that at all. That doesn't mean that it's not open to you, it simply means that you have to do it perfectly. That's the paradox inherent in a clean start: because it can't be announced and is by definition undetectable, there's no way to review if it ever complies with other aspects of the policy when someone is successful at making one. If there's some reason that you have to make statements about Colton Cosmic from the new account, it isn't a clean start at all.—Kww(talk) 16:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
We have vastly different perspectives on the matter. My position is that we, as "Wikipedians" (though that sounds a bit corny sometimes), are bound by policy. So the point is not whether I could edit under another account without getting caught, the point is a matter of principle that I shouldn't do it. It does take some reading to get one's head around WP:CLEANSTART. I disagree that cleanstarts are by definition undetectable. Checkusers probably detect them commonly, see that the old account stopped editing and the new account didn't go back to the same topics (or same quarrels if there were any), think "oh, that's a cleanstart" and do not act. Colton Cosmic (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

RFC/U

Colton, I will help you with an RFC/U if that is what you want. Use this page to write up the RFC/U the way you want it presented and I will create it for you. Then after it has been certified (if it is) I will copy any additional comments/replies from here to the RFC/U. GB fan 13:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thank you GB. I am using the example template from the RFC/U pages. It is ridiculously massive but I'll put it in a section below and try to neaten my talkpage later. It is inconsiderate to you to do a bunch of copy-pasting for me as the RFC/U progresses (and demeaning to me) so I just put in there that people should ask me stuff here at my talkpage. Colton Cosmic (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

RFC draft for GB_fan review, modification, submission

GB, oh this is atrocious to format, but you should be able to copy/paste the text between the "pre" markers to the RFC/U submission page. The way the RFC appears to work is you are putting your signature on it, so check everything I said for neutral tone (except the subsection designated for my personal response) and modify it as you see fit. Do not submit anything that is not a basically factual summation as you perceive it. I provided the supporting hyperlinks.

I tried to do it but you will probably have to fix the linebreaks and maybe the hyperlinks. You can do that and evaluate and modify the content at the same time.

Like it says in there, I am not asking you to copy-paste me for the whole RFC/U process, just point them here, and I'll answer whatever.

This is obviously a pain in the butt, so whatever our past differences I am grateful to you for undertaking it. Colton Cosmic (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I improved the draft. Colton Cosmic (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC) 

==Statement of the dispute==
Colton Cosmic and Timotheus Canens disagree on whether Colton's editing constituted a form of sockpuppetry (]) for which Colton was permanently blocked by Timotheus Canens on 15 May, 2012.
=== Desired outcome  ===
An expression by RFC/U participants as to the accuracy of the socking charge. This will inform the decision of any administrator considering unblocking him.
=== Description ===
Timotheus blocked without warning, evidence in the form of diffs, or explanation at Colton's talkpage. The blocklog  displays the following pre-set text attirbuted to Timotheus: "Abusing multiple accounts: WP:ILLEGIT; undisclosed alternate accounts may not edit project space." Colton stated and continues to state his innocence of the charge. In his first edit () Colton acknowledged a previous Misplaced Pages account that he said he abandoned for privacy reasons. It states in part "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." Much later, addressing queries at his talkpage, prior to Timotheus' block of him, he further stated that his prior account was not subject to any editing restrictions from ArbCom or the community: . Colton's initial block appeal was denied by Tide_rolls . Colton's subsequent appeal to Arbcom was declined by Silktork ("User has appealed the block. This has been declined")(). The question of "Unblocking_Colton_Cosmic" was later raised at WP:AN/ANI (), but he was not unblocked.  
=== Evidence of disputed behavior ===
Timotheus Canens asserted, on 11 April, 2013, ten months after the block, that this diff  partially justified the block.
Timotheus Canens referred, on 11 April, 2013, apparently sarcastically, to other "delightful contributions" that warrant a blocking for sockpuppetry, not specifying them: .
Colton Cosmic offers the following to argue he is a constructive editor: 
Article on ]. "I created this one in pretty much its current form. It would be a lot better by now if I hadn't been blocked so quickly."
"Third opinion" (WP:3DO) community process (). I initiated it to resolve a content dispute. I graciously abided by the third opinion though it went against my own position."
Researched policy to inform a debate over content (). "This is where I hunted and hunted to find policy on image relevance. I reported back so the parties would have policy to go by."
=== Applicable policies and guidelines ===
], ], ], ], ].
=== Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute ===
No direct dialogue between Timotheus Canens and Colton Cosmic has occurred. Timotheus' first interaction with Colton was to permanently block him. A keyword search of the entire history of Colton's talkpage () for "Timotheus" and "Canens" and variations does not reveal a Timotheus comment.
Colton did a standard appeal that was declined by Tide_rolls on Tide_rolls' position that Colton's appeal wording accused Timotheus of wrongdoing, and that Colton "advocated the misinterpretation" of WP:CLEANSTART (Tide_rolls did not elaborate or provide his or her own interpretation). Colton's second standard block appeal was declined by Ultraexactzz on the basis that Colton would not email the identification of his former account to Bwilkins, whom Ultraexactzz asserted had guaranteed Colton confidentiality.     
Colton appealed to Arbcom with result by Silktork "User has appealed the block. This has been declined"(). WP:AN/ANI declined to unblock him () based on a vote of "supports" and "opposes" with wide variety of opinions. 
Colton continues to state his innocence, and asserts that the "declines to unblock" of Arbcom and WP:AN/ANI do not equate to to affirmative Arbcom or WP:AN/ANI "blocks." He thus personally requested this RFC/U to obtain community input on whether the record shows that he is guilty of sockpuppetry, and thereby whether he should be unblocked. 
==== Attempts by certifier C1 ====
<!-- Please replace "C1" with the username of the first certifier.-->
:#
:#
==== Attempts by certifier C2 ====
<!-- Please replace "C2" with the username of the second certifier.-->
:#
:#
==== Other attempts ====
:#
:#
=== Users certifying the basis for this dispute ===
''{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}''
<!-- Please note: If you did not try and fail to resolve the dispute, but agree with the summary's presentation of events, please sign in the next section. Remember to notify the subject, via his/her talk page, that a conduct dispute has been raised.-->
:# 
:#
=== Other users who endorse this summary ===
<!-- If you agree with the summary's presentation of events but did not try and fail to resolve the dispute, please sign in this section. -->
''{Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views.   RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.  Discussion of this view or other people's endorsements belongs on the talk page, not in this section.}''
# <!-- Replace this with your signature -->
#
==Response==
Disclosure: I, Colton Cosmic, initially drafted this RFC/U, and left it up to GB_fan (who agreed to present it) to modify for factuality and neutral tone as he or she deems fit, and for others to certify as a generally accurate account. 
Please be aware that I can't respond to your questions here because I am blocked, except for my talkpage. If you have a question of me, please go there and allow me to answer before finalizing your input at this page
Foremost, I say that I am "not guilty" of sockpuppetry. I abandoned my prior account for privacy reasons like I always said, and never edited with it again. Neither has evidence ever been presented. If there is "secret evidence" I don't know about it and neither does Timotheus Canens, who later said he was "not sure" what my prior account was (I can't locate the diff for this, it's in one of the non-indexed 30 archives at his talkpage, in response to a query by Tarc). 
Above, under "Evidence of disputed behavior," I provided examples of what I consider makes me a constructive editor. If you are troubled by my criticism of Nomoskedasticity in the diff provided by Timotheus, it is because I viewed him or her, rightly or wrongly, as wikihounding and cyberbullying Youreallycan for an extended period of time. If you look at my editing history until the block broadly though, I think you will recognize a constructive editor.  
Though not a sock, I am certainly not without fault. I did not respond very well to being blocked, because I was aggravated at it, felt ganged up on, and had no experience at crafting well-made block appeals. When I self-appraised myself as an editor later, I did acknowledge my weakness at WP:CIV, and pledged to improve. I reiterate that pledge now. I will mind WP:CIV doubly if ever unblocked.
If unblocked, I have pointed to my intentions to edit on, quite sincerely, certain varieties of trees, as well as articles relating to the real-life superhero phenomenon, and to try to improve policy. This is not a blueprint though: I might edit whatever like I always used to.   
''This section is reserved for the use of the user whose conduct is disputed.  Users writing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section, and the person writing this section should not write a view below.  Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but no one except the editor(s) named in the dispute may change the summary here.''
{Add your summary here.  You must use the endorsement section below to sign it.}
===Users who endorse this summary:===
''RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.  Discussion of this view or comments made by people endorsing this view belong on the talk page, not in this section''
#
==Views==
''This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute.  Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. '''All''' signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to ].  Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.'' 
===Outside view by ExampleUsername===
{Add your summary here.  You must use the endorsement section below to sign it.  Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views.  RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.}
Users who endorse this summary:
#
===Outside view by ExampleUsername===
{Add your summary here.  You must use the endorsement section below to sign it.  Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views.  RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.}
Users who endorse this summary:
#
==Reminder to use the talk page for discussion==
''All'' signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to ]. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.<!--
Do not comment below. Please read the instructions above.
-->

RFC/U submission try again

@EdChem: You said you'd help me out with the RFC/U. Would you go ahead and give it a shot? I thought go ahead with @GB fan: who had also volunteered, and seemed like he might be more familiar with them. However GB_fan has been off-wiki for three days and counting now. This after editing every single day for at least the last 45 days (I looked, got tired of scrolling back). I felt aggravated for a bit, but realized that was self-centered because GB might be having a personal emergency or something. I hope GB is okay. Nevertheless I'd like to go ahead with the RFC/U if you are willing. The draft is right above. I'd suggest editing the section and copy-pasting from between the "pre" markers. Colton Cosmic (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Apologies

Colton, I have to apologize. I had every intention of helping out with this but some stuff came up and I will not have the time to look over what you have written and submit it. Hopefully someone else will be able to help. Again I apologize. GB fan 20:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

My unblocking is important to me, and your 96 hour delay after you agreed to help aggravated me, but that is not offensive enough to amount to anything requiring an apology. Nevertheless, I accept without condition to clear any wandering uncertainties about it. When you get a chance, consider unblocking me if you ever come to the opinion that I didn't do what I'm blocked for. Colton Cosmic (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)