User talk:Colton Cosmic

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

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

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

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

Please do mull it over. Admins here are in an impossible position due to our anonymous anyone-can-edit policy. When a ban-/block-/sanction-avoiding editor socks, unless they're especially stupid about it, admins have only behavioural evidence to go on. Your behaviour - edit-warring in, tangentally, the mixed martial arts area which is full of appalling banned time-wasting troublemakers; giving lip to admins on noticeboards; proposing a problematical (I'll explain why later) change to WP:3RR and a too-subtle and apparently-but-not stupid change to WP:CLEANSTART, dressing down Nomo like an old adversary, proposing the (superficially - I realise your argument is worthy of considering) absurd removal of an article subject's identity - matches the behaviour of many ban-avoiders whose identities are later technically confirmed.

Reasonable people think your proposed removal of the superhero's identity was preposterous, your treatment of Nomo was suspicious, your correcting of admin behaviour at ANI was impertinent, and your policy proposals were stupid and dangerous and, at this stage, changing their minds on your value to the project is unlikely to happen - because they're too busy and too jacked off with you for your annoying transparent block-avoiding to bother. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blargh. Is this the same Anthonyhcole who was in danger of becoming my best Wikipedia friend until now? ;) There's too much there to disagree with right now, I generally stand by those edits except where admittedly I was uncivil on a *scarce* number of occasions. To get just the first one though. Phoenix Jones is a superhero, not a professional MMA competitor. His real-life identity is a "non-notable" (referring to policy, not the man) *regional* MMA hobbyist, of which there are thousands throughout the USA, as a rule not warranting Wikipedia coverage. As for giving admins lip, that should not be a blockable offense. Colton Cosmic (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. I'm describing how it looks. And, though giving lip to admins isn't technically a blockable offense, it's not going to inspire trust or motivate them to help you. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure I gave any administrators lip. Way back when, I criticized some for failure to warn, and Drmies responded sarcastically, and I came back mildly to that. That actually may have been Timotheus' unstated irritation, it was also in his diff. Rather than that horror of all verbal horrors I perpetrated on the kind and noble Nomoskedasticity. When Mastcell dropped by out of nowhere to interrogate me about my prior account, I had no idea who that was or if he or she was an administrator. So I replied "who wants to know" meaning "explain yourself" and now Lukeno94 says I was "abusive" to him or her. Am I giving Bwilkins/EatsShootsAndLeaves/?/DangerousPanda "lip" by pointing out he said to some poor hurting editor "may you rot in the hell that is eternal block?" People used to tell former U.S. President Harry Truman "give 'em hell, Harry," and he replied "I just told the truth, and they think it's hell." Anyhow I mulled over your idea to voluntarily not edit to "show respect for norms." I appreciate the thought but you can't make deals like that because you're not an administrator. You can't sell that prospect. An administrator could on the other hand take ownership of it, but it'd have to be better than some lukewarm "I would raise your case for discussion at WP:AN/ANI." Yeah, right, tell me another knee-slapping hoot-and-howler. It's not likely at all really, but as a matter of brainstorming: if my block for socking were overturned (i.e. I am unblocked with a statement that the original block was invalid) I would agree to immediately report myself at WP:AN/ANI for my block evasion, call for a show of hands of blocking me 0, 90, or 180 days (for block evasion) and abide the majority or plurality result. Funny huh? But yeah I'd do that. Colton Cosmic (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's giving lip to admins. Don't worry. I do it all the time. It's only a problem as part of the composite, the evidence that you are some banned trouble-maker.

User:Drmies and User:MastCell are two of the people I most respect and admire. Should you ever settle down to a quiet life of editing and collaborating here, you'll find their clue and good humour a tonic. Having read through all of your interactions before the block I can see a sad kind of inevitability about it all. Given the confluence of factors at that time, they were both well-justified in their skepticism, and you were entitled to your responses.

That inevitability extends to the whole car wreck, given the norms here.

I fully understand your response. Being characterised as deceitful and blocked is unpleasant. This was just me thinking out loud. Reflecting. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Triptych? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've got nothing to say about any off-Wikipedia account, not "yes," not "no," not "maybe," and in my opinion you shouldn't even be asking. Colton Cosmic (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthonyhcole: You say you respect Drmies and Mastcell. Drmies figured in my block, looking back I don't think Timotheus was quarreling so much with my criticism of Nomo. as with my comeback to Drmies who sarcastically portrayed me as a "masked fighter of admin abuse." Now some administrator who's idly and randomly vandalizing with his "rev-delete" button deleted that exchange where Worm posted it at his "Outside view" but I have it here:

"Darn! A contributor who believes admins ought to warn, and isn't scared to say it in their frontyard! I figure odds are about two in seven that he's an admin. I've read virtually nothing of whatever the heck the quarrel was about, but I saw Youreallycan conscientiously report himself and figure he ought to be unblocked on that basis if no other. Colton Cosmic (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC) PS: Who's administering the admins?"

"Good thing we have you, a masked fighter of admin abuse. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)"

"Hey Drmies [11], I actually like a sarcastic comment like that because it allows me to know you better. I briefly looked at your user page and I didn't see your face either. Colton Cosmic (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)"

"Try the user pages of my previous accounts. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)"

Now what's going on here? Am I sassing admins? No. Does Drmies get snotty and sarcastic? Yes. And what is Drmies saying at the last? I *thought* that he was favorably highlighting his straightforwardness by saying he only had one account (because there were no signs of other accounts at his userpage). BUT I later found that Drmies does indeed have at least one previous account. He doesn't disclose or confirm it that I've seen. There was no way for me to know about it when he was making his snotty remark. So I still wonder if he intentionally mislead me.

As for Mastcell, whom you respect, he or she scoured my edits when I was blocked and furnished the most hideous distortion and utter prosecutorial twisting of my edits. I mean if I ever made a positive one, it didn't exist, and if I ever stepped on someone's toe, he or portrayed me as amputating his or her leg at mid-thigh. It was literally grotesque and I had *no idea* who Mastcell even was, and I'm getting sandbagged out-of-the-blue right when I'm reacting to my shock block. At a later point Mastcell furnished this entire evidence-free suspicion-based and stupid theory that I was the sock of some editor who also thought four edits with the fourth just outside 24 hours should not count as WP:3RR violation. Mastcell said that I and whoever it was were "obsessed" with the point. I think I commented and responded on the point a few times on a single day. It was just bull, I never heard of the guy he said I am. He manufactures this whole incoherent theory and says something like "I have no hard evidence but people trust my experience and gut feeling." It was hilarious if he wasn't successfully contributing to the WP:AN/ANI mob attack on me.

So sorry, I'm still sort of undecided on Drmies, though he seemed to mislead me, but nothing I've seen from Mastcell shows an administrator worthy of my respect, quite the opposite. Colton Cosmic (talk) 11:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All they have to go on - absent solid technical CU evidence or an admission - is circumstantial impressions and gut. They make mistakes. In this case, having read most of the lead-up to the block, as I said above, there was an inevitability about the thing.

It's an art. I don't know Timotheus Canens from a bar of soap, so I don't know if he's deft or a klutz, but in this instance it was a reasonable assumption that you're a returning trouble-maker. He could have talked a bit with you first, and I hope he's learned from the experience. But it was the kind of misjudgment in a difficult art that can and should be forgiven, unless he does it all the time - and I've not seen that case made.

It's my opinion that you should drop this now, create a new account and carry on writing content for a while. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clear you up on it then: he's very deft. It was never any "reasonable assumption" that I was a "returning troublemaker." Timotheus Canens was irritated and pushed his block button. Anyone who reviewed my edits would see a constructive editor. The refusal to communicate is just the irrevocable proof of abuse. He did it to ArkRe and no doubt many others. I can't create a new account; it's against policy. Colton Cosmic (talk) 13:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC) PS: What Mastcell and like administrators do is not "an art." It's just bull made up as they go along, and powered by idle, ignorant suspicion and absence accountability.[reply]

@Nil Einne, Blueboar, Joseph Laferriere, and John: would you have a look at my (request for comment/user) RFC/U ([1]) and consider voicing an opinion? It's a blocking case. It's a long read but if you stick to the actual RFC/U and turn your eyes away from all the commentary, you can probably come away with an informed opinion in 15 minutes. If you're not interested, then excuse the ping please, I won't do so again.

I haven't interacted with any of you that I know of, except John. Nil Einne, I noticed you comment on a wikihounding case. Blueboar, you are interested in masons, I know a guy who is a knight templar, which I think is some sort of mason. Joseph LaFerriere, you edited swamp white oak, a tree I'm also interested in. And John, when last we spoke you were trying to solve my conundrum, but you were (rightfully) engaged in some particular real-life matters that consumed your time; I got impatient; and we agreed that I'd go on to the next administrator. Maybe you can help now.

The idea of an RFC/U is that you read it, then either cast your own "outside view" in the large section designated "Views" or just endorse the view of any other that you agree with. I would prefer you form your own viewpoint, because I feel that the views posted there early are weighted to the habitual blockers and block arguers (the RFC/U is about my block) and those who quickly got there because they watchedlisted my talkpage long ago, and decided against me long ago. (There are also some others that came fresh to the case, and I'm faring better with them.) You can evaluate the RFC however you want but consider the way I and GB_fan framed it ([2]), which is a 1-2-3 assessment. Thanks for reading Colton Cosmic (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for the invitation. I skimmed over the page you suggested, and must say I cannot judge without more detailed information about what this person did. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, realizing that honest, well-intentioned people can make mistakes from ignorance and inexperience rather than from malice. As for my editing the swamp oak, I have been editing all sorts of things, including plants I've never heard of but can find information about from on-line sources such as Tropicos and The Plant List. Lots of fun, better than watching tv in the evenings. As for the Knights Templar, fascinating group. They were knights participating in the Crusades, but also ordained as monks. They had a decree from the Vatican saying that they were above the law in every country in Christiandom. Extremely wealthy, powerful, and ultimately dangerous bunch of characters. There is nothing so perilous as a well-trained soldier with the best weapons around, plus a pocket full of gold, convinced he is on a mission from God to kill the infidels.Joseph Laferriere (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Removal of UserTalkPage Access. Thank you. DP 14:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, to any administrator taking this seriously, the nutshell at

WP:CANVASSING

says "This page in a nutshell: When notifying other editors of discussions, keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions." My use of the ping function is consistent with that.

Secondly, I (and Writkeeper) have asked the above administrator to stay off my talkpage. While a neutral notification like that is A-okay, I don't want my response here to signify to him that he can come here and debate the matter with me now. Colton Cosmic (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm its subject and there's some bruising commentary in the "outside views" [3] that I'm prepared to go along with, but it's getting pretty ridiculous at the talkpage [4]. Critics who opined against me a week ago have confiscated it for their second home and are settling in for the long haul. Do I risk a WP:CIV infringement by saying "you spoke your piece, but shouldn't you move along by now, and by the way: get a life?"

So there's that, but even more pertinently, I am familiar enough with my own case to answer some of those questions that come up and neutrally correct with diffs some of the factual misunderstandings. It would make for a more illuminating RFC/U and it is the general conception of RFC/Us that the editor in question is able to participate in the talkpage discussion. So I reiterate my request that some administrator unblock me sufficiently to comment on the talkpage. If you just generally unblock me, I promise to only comment at the talkpage and further commit to an heightened civility expectation. 10:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The RFC/U on you is quite a strange beast. Unlike a usual RFC/U, which are about that subject's behaviour and practices on WP, this one is about an aspect of a case against a user, in this case you, which isn't something I've usually seen on an RFC/U. That being said, unblocking you to participate in an RFC/U that involves you would require a community review. Should you wish such a review, I could open up an entry on

WP:AN to see whether a consensus can be obtained. Personally, it seems silly not to temporarily unblock you for this. In the past, indef'd users have been unblocked to participate in ANI's about them and then either remain blocked or are reblocked depending on consensus. Blackmane (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

@Blackmane: There is not any "community review" needed to merely unblock me to participate in my RFC/U, in fact there is no community review needed to unblock me period. WP:UNBLOCK governs it. Any administrator is within his or her authority to unblock me at any time. Nihonjoe did so on extensive research last time, but was faulted on the basis that he didn't talk it up enough beforehand. Don't raise it at WP:AN/ANI, but you can call the matter to the attention of your favorite admin if you like, and tell him or her what I said: I promise not to edit elsewhere except the RFC/U talkpage. Colton Cosmic (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC) PS: I see in your "Outside view" where you believe, yes I was wrongly blocked, but then you fault me for block evasion. I tell you I really had no choice in the matter if I ever hoped to edit Wikipedia again. The WP:BASC email appeal process is a complete sham, it rejects literally 92 percent of appeals with explanation-free form responses. UTRS is a privacy-invasive computer fingerprinting scheme, with any number of anonymous administrators (and "administrative participants" getting access to that data. And so on and so on. I hope you change that part of your view Blackmane, before someone agrees with it and sort of locks it in. I am willing to talk that over with you more if you don't agree my position.[reply]

I know that your TP access has now been revoked, but I will leave a post here as I am sure you will see it. Your initial block, though somewhat troublesome to me, was ultimately upheld by a number of administrators. It graduated to the realm whereby no admin would willingly unblock you without significant community support. Although not in the policy, this is how blocks such as yours have come to be handled (of course any admin who reads this is free to correct me).

I find fault in your initial block as it was not clear to me why you were blocked. However, you had a clear choice in your subsequent actions (I'd read through all the unblock requests and replies by various admins). These were repeatedly laid out to you by a number of admins, including an Arbcom member who assured you that the privacy of your previous account would be maintained. My view that I posted in the RFC/U is unchanged in this regard. Blackmane (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably running a risk of an admonishment from an admin for continuing this discussion, but oh well. To the matter at hand, I said "...I could..." do so, not I would do so, should you request it. However you responded by effectively demanding that I seek out an admin and request that they unblock you. This I will not do as that is effectively a 3rd party unblock request, which will be denied. This I can guarantee. As I said, should you request it, I could raise a, neutrally worded, question on AN but having done so, I will not advocate for either blocking nor unblocking.

As for Lukeno's intervention on my talk page, that is within the remit of reverting block evasion. His reversion only means I have to read my talk page history, which is of minimal inconvenience to me. Blackmane (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or, indeed, me. Do you know something I don't? My name is David Craven and I'm known as Dave. Where you get the idea that I'm being duplicitous is beyond me. I've seen many incorrect facts about me off-wiki, but to the best of my knowledge, I've never lied about myself. What I offered was to look at your past account, maintain confidentiality, confirm your statements, vouch for the account if I saw no other issues and even consider unblocking. That's all I can offer. Worm^TT(talk) 14:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, you can see that there is, as yet, no consensus to unblock you to participate in the RFC/U. However, both DangerousPanda and Technical13 have brought up a usable solution. It is possible for a subpage of your user page or talk page to be created and all of your posts to that page can be transcluded onto a section in the RFC/U. See mw:W:LST. If consensus is that you remain blocked, you can nonetheless request that this subpage transclusion be performed. Blackmane (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Shii, OhanaUnited, Cindamuse, and Kathryn NicDhàna: would you mind having a look and commenting at my Request for Comment/User (RFC/U). You'll find it here: [5]. It's a long read but if you stick to RFC/U itself you can get through it in about 15 minutes.

I was accused of and permanently blocked for socking. The purpose (well, as *I* see it) of the RFC/U is to furnish the community discussion basis that several people at WP:AN/ANI said is prerequisite to an administrator unblocking me. I selected you four to invite to review the RFC/U because your initials together spell S.O.C.K. I checked then to make sure you were recently active.

Well, my defense to the socking charge as you'll find if you read the RFC/U is that I never did it. My blocker stayed curiously silent, people figured he had "secret evidence" and the avalanche just started rolling from there. I block evaded via raw IP, always signing my username, mainly to seek unblock. I really believed (and believe) I had no other genuine choice than that to ever get unblocked. Anyhow, if you have any questions, let me know here at my talkpage, because I currently can't edit at the RFC/U or anywhere else. Colton Cosmic (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Shii, OhanaUnited, Cindamuse, and Kathryn NicDhàna: <tap> <tap> Is this thing on? 12:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Due to chronic abuse of the ping mechanism in an effort to canvass, Colton's talk page access has been revoked.—Kww(talk) 13:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you are aware, there is a discussion concerning your block at [6]. Your talk page access has been restored so you can post comments to be added to the discussion thread. Talk page access is liable to be rescinded if repeats of past behaviour, such as misuse of the ping mechanism occur again in future. Nick (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, thanks for the notification and for raising, in the best way we could figure out, this matter that means so much to me. I'll try not to let you down by being extra-careful in adherence to policy. To any administrator that happens by here, if you are willing to stick your neck out too by unblocking me generally to defend myself for the duration the discussion, I promise to edit nowhere but there and here, and further promise to doubly observe WP:CIV civility standards. Colton Cosmic (talk) 00:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you can post your messages here and they can be transcribed with little fuss, right? Tiderolls 07:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colton, I asked this at AN, but you've always been honest about such things before, so I might just ask here. When was the last time you evaded your block? (I expect to ask for an unblock) Worm^TT(talk) 07:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer both at once. No right-minded person would think it fair and no fair-minded person would think it right to deny me the ability to directly defend myself in any ban discussion concerning me. Keeping me in a box here, and saying I can just type stuff for a good samaritan to copy over is demeaning to both and doesn't work at all. Already, multiple erroneous statements are being said there, for example Fluffernutter's assertions that A) I ever appealed to her on IRC (I didn't), B) I haven't disclosed my prior account to anyone (I did), and C) I ever voiced or implied concerns about my personal safety (I didn't).

Therefore I ask again for a volunteer administrator willing to go out on a limb on my promise to edit only here and at the discussion, and to doubly observe WP:CIV civility standards, to unlock me generally for the duration of the discussion. For purpose of defending myself. It would certainly make for a more enlightening and yes fairer discussion.

Worm, I do not recall when last I block evaded. 45 or 60 days, maybe more. There have been multiple month periods, but none reaching six, in the two plus years I've been blocked in which I didn't block evade. Colton Cosmic (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Colton. As for your other point - it'd be trivial to set up a transclusion using <noinclude>tags so that a section of your talk page appears on AN - I'm sure that's been done in the past. I'll do so now, on the understanding that if there are objections it can be easily reverted. Worm^TT(talk) 09:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've dropped you an email on topic. Worm^TT(talk) 08:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The email service I used when last we communicated (which was quite some time ago) is no longer functional. I don't know for sure that that's the one you used but if it was I suppose your email bounced back by now. I don't want to publish my email openly here. I'll see if I can think of something. May I ask the general nature of your email? Colton Cosmic (talk) 11:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it was, unfortunately it hadn't bounced back. As to the general nature of the email, I was re-iterating an offer I made some time ago. If you do want to discuss further, feel free to email me at worm.that.turnedgmail.com Worm^TT(talk) 11:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthonyhcole, Nick, Blackmane, and Worm That Turned: Would any of you consider posting at Jimbo's talkpage that I am about to be banned [7] and it would be decent of him to go ahead and vouch that my prior account is free of blocks, sanctions, and so forth. Posting there would also have the effect of drawing a more representative group of Wikipedians to the discussion. Colton Cosmic (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification to Jimbo. [8]. Nick (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, I am further in your debt. I can feel the noose tightening in that discussion, so might as well try this. Although you have not questioned it, be assured that my representation that Jimbo has the account and, in his words, "investigated" it, is accurate. The way I viewed his and my arrangement was that he was supposed to unblock me if it checked out. He did not do so. If he viewed it, rather than a simple check for blocks and sanctions, as more of an holistic appraisal of my merits as an editor which he would then mark pass or fail, he did not ever clarify this to me nor notify me what my deficiencies were, if that was his finding. Colton Cosmic (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo has asked that I make people aware of this statement [9]. Nick (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to @Jimbo Wales: on his request. You want me to ping you with the emails? I will tell you our first exchange was on 12 and 13 September 2013 (within about an hour I think, I guess the date flipped in whatever time-zone my client logged, i.e. it wasn't a day later). You agreed to confidentiality on my prior account, and I told you. You restated the name in a reply email. I do not want to further put into bytes the account name because of privacy concerns, and for goodness sake don't checkuser it now because it'll show up in the logs. Can you just please tell people that the account was free of blocks and sanctions before I am banned? Colton Cosmic (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before I begin, I'd like to protest against this discussion being transcluded to ANI rather than taking place directly there. I do understand the issue of Colton needing to participate and this being a way to do that but even for an experienced editor, I found replying to be surprising and confusing and it took me a few moments to figure out where to reply. Issue for another day but this is one reason I think our talk pages need serious engineering effort to improve our workflow.

Now, on to substantive matters. I can confirm that Colton Cosmic disclosed to me the name of an account which has no blocks or bans. Additionally, albeit without having done a comprehensive search of the history of the account, I saw no warnings or complaints or concerns of any kind posted there. Additionally, having checked a fair number of edits, I didn't see anything ban-worthy or problematic. These are simple facts.

However, it is worth noting that at his request, based on his stated (but unexplained) very strong concerns for his privacy, I did not checkuser the account. I therefore have no way of knowing or even guessing whether this account is really related. With sufficient effort based on writing style, articles edited, etc., I think that respected community members might be able to make an educated guess, and it seems as likely as not to me that Colton is telling the truth.

Additionally, as I said to Colton, I could find no reason for him not to disclose the account to ArbCom. Per his wishes and my promise, I have not done so and do not intend to do so, but I continue to offer my advice that disclosing the account to ArbCom, explaining the reason to them why he has privacy concerns (the account is not a definitive real name), will be a helpful way forward.

As it stands, I neither endorse nor impose a continuation of the ban. I don't know anything about the rest of the evidence or controversy, as I restricted my research to the specific question of whether the alleged past account was under any sanctions: it was not.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To whom wants to know, I responded via email (he also emailed me) to Jimbo on his miserly position that our like dozen emails back and forth have given him no inkling whether the account is really mine. I strongly told him in kind just what I made of *his* propensity to tell the truth. If he wanted to frickin' linguistically analyze the account compared to Colton Cosmic, we could have no doubt found key similarities together. He said nothing of that before he commented the above. If he wanted to get on IRC and quick quiz me randomly about edits I made years ago and check that way, I'm sure they'd ring bells and I'd get them. Oh well, at least he finally acknowledged *something*. Colton Cosmic (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthonyhcole: I saw your comments in my ban discussion. Why don't you just vote instead? You say "that's the story being put out" about me (which is weasel words) but I see Anthonyhcole as the one who's putting it out. Colton Cosmic (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colton Cosmic's responses

I. @Fluffernutter: is incorrect that A) I ever appealed to her on IRC (I didn't), B) I haven't disclosed my prior account to anyone (I did), and C) I ever voiced or implied concerns about my personal safety (I didn't). @Dennis Brown:is incorrect that I'm banned, and I'm surprised to hear him make this assertion because I thought I recalled he said that editors shouldn't be banned as a result of discussions in which the participants didn't know they were voting for a ban. @Beyond My Ken: says he well remembers my Arbcom discussion but I don't understand how he was privy to that because it took place on its confidential mailing list. Colton Cosmic (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

II. It's starting pretty poorly for me, but I'd say to anyone who actually comes fresh to my case, to not treat it like a standard WP:AN/ANI "vote him or her off the island" popularity contest. Think instead about things like whether I actually did what I was originally blocked for, if I really had any alternative besides clearly-disclosed block evasion, and also whether these ban discussions are truly representative of the community and fair to their subjects. Or if something needs to be changed and handled differently. Colton Cosmic (talk) 10:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

III. @Od Mishehu, Yamla, Blackmane, and Robert McClenon: and others, in my seven or eight years of editing, I have never socked Wikipedia. After being wrongfully blocked and then pushed around while trying to make the appeals system work, I resorted to clearly-disclosed IP block evasion. Evasion is governed by its own policy, WP:EVADE. Everybody knows that to sock requires a deceptive element. One pretends to be someone else to cause the appearance of more support for a viewpoint than actually exists, or to work mischief for humor, or for malicious purposes. I never did that at all. So demands for me to stop socking for a year have already been met at least seven times over. @Atlan:, I don't agree with that other stuff you said however yes, it is my position that these WP:AN/ANI ban discussions are not representative of the community. The community, and Lila Tretikov also says this, is comprised of *all* the editors and administrators. What we have at WP:AN/ANI is, I find, heavily weighted toward block enthusiasts. But that is not to imply that I'll give it no weight if this discussion finishes at the same proportions as it has started. Colton Cosmic (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IV. Okay, I am not going to get in some ping pong match with Robert McClenon. I believe that most people know what a sockpuppet is. I'm not that. @Tide rolls: says I'll never abide by any Wikipedia policies but in fact I always took them seriously. I never had a problem in my first 5 or 6 years of editing. @Kww: says I don't intend to be a useful contributor ever. In fact in my previous account I started several articles on important matters, and even in my short time as Colton Cosmic before being stomped on I at least wrote Rain_City_Superhero_Movement which was directly linked by mainstream news sites like Slate.com and I believe quoted by national newscaster Robin Meade on HLN morning news. People, I feel like my words are falling on deaf ears but if you actually look at my edits when this account started you'll see a good editor. Don't allow me to be portrayed as some horrible villain because I block evaded later. I felt I had no alternative. I encourage any newcomer to my case, so far I've only noticed one below, to ask yourself "Why are we banning this person? What did he actually *do*?" Colton Cosmic (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

V. Blargh, would anyone post notification at Jimbo's talkpage to ask him vouch that my prior account is block and sanction free, to save me from being banned? It would also broaden participation in this discussion. Colton Cosmic (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VI. @Favonian: I do not want to get sidetracked but the idea that I canvassed my RFC/U was refuted by WP:AN/ANI when Bwilkins reported me for that and not a single person agreed. I tried to broaden participation in the RFC/U with pretty well random editors, without any idea if they'd support me. It's explicitly allowed by WP:CANVASSING. Read the nutshell. @GiantSnowman, Favonian, and Ohnoitsjamie: please stop telling me to disclose my former account to an arb or "arb or similar." Jimbo has it and is well aware it is free of sanctions and block, which means of course that my WP:CLEANSTART for privacy concerns was valid and policy-compliant. Last, some passing administrator should tell Resolute that typing to me in the discussion "Honestly Colton, go away" with "go away" bolded is uncivil violation WP:CIV and so is other stuff he or she is saying, that I "couldn't be trusted" and so forth. Colton Cosmic (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VII. @Binksternet: Contrary to your criticism, I believe I am not naturally argumentative, it is of course rather that I argue with being blocked, pushed around, and insulted as if a non-person, which I've come to realize is the experience of many a blockee. My five or six years editing prior being blocked were nothing like this. As for your charge of hypocrisy, I'm comfortable I'm not that either. You grant that I made productive content contributions but it is telling as to your personality that you can't resist to come back a moment later to inform us all that it was merely to a "non-critical area."[10]. Finally, it is not by my choice that time is wasted with any of this, it is that I seek to be unblocked. I wish I could go back to creating content. It's also a bit astonishing those that choose to take the time to comment, only to complain that their time is wasted to comment. Answer is of course don't blame me, go do something else. Colton Cosmic (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VIII. He was ten months late, but if anyone didn't see it, Jimbo publicly acknowledged that he examined my prior account and found it free of sanctions, blocks, and any obvious misbehavior; he further said though that he took no position on whether it was actually my account, suggesting that I turn it over to the arbs for linguistic matching and so forth. Of course even if that worked, someone would raise the possibility that perhaps I have a secret *third* account that's the really abusive one. And so on. And so on. I ask the closer of this discussion to mention that Jimbo reviewed the account and it was free of blocks and sanctions, because all along this has been a sticking point for many. Colton Cosmic (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An anon editor has left a message concerning you on my talk page here]. I doubt that there's anything I can do to help you. Giano (talk) 10:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ditto, using anonymous accounts to drag this enwiki issue to meta really isn't constructive. The mechanisms to resolve this are listed at

WP:UNBAN. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Thirded, as the other admin you messaged- WP:UNBAN has the steps for the official process for getting a ban overturned; forum-shopping around to find an admin is not one of the steps. --PresN 16:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the discussion on Bishonen's talk page.

I still think you should be unbanned. But it's not going to happen. The "thinking out loud" comment above applied only to that comment. I'm not putting anything about regarding your behaviour at WO - I'm simply asking what you did there, in response to this deleted comment on your RFC/U talk page.

We're all flawed here, even the admins and arbs, but almost all the people you put so much shit on are well-meaning and overworked in a broken system. The real problem isn't the people who are mostly doing their best, it's the system. Refocus on that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colton has opined on my talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You ban clearly states that you may appeal only after you have not edited Wikpedia for 12 months, using any account or IP address. As you edited today (23 January 2016) (permalink) appeals will not be considered before 23 January 2017 at the earliest. If you edit again before that date the timer will reset again and you will need to wait 12 months from that point. Thryduulf (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following more socking today on Jimbo's talk page, the timer is now set at 24 January 2017. On or after that date, or one year after your most recent edit (whichever is later) you may appeal using the Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System as has been previously advised. Thryduulf (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm curious, can any IP pretend to be a banned editor or was this IP confirmed to actually be this editor? --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 19:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IPs yesterday and today are a very clear behavioural match for the banned editor, an SPI would I suspect determine a checkuser to be unnecessary. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• So . . . in reality, it could be anyone with an axe to grind. Well, that's of little comfort! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 21:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No. It could be either (a) the banned editor, or (b) anyone with an axe to grind who can flawlessly impersonate the behaviour,
  etc., of the editor they want to implicate to such an extent that nobody who is familiar with the banned editor smells a rat and who can edit from an IP address that is plausibly that of the banned editor. If there was a suspicion that the IP was not the banned editor then a CU and/or other investigation would be done to determine who it really is, if possible. In this case though, there is no such suspicion. Thryduulf (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It is a bit perverse to count an appeal as block evasion that "resets" the length of the ban. Surely anyone could agree that an appeal is different from standard block evasion. If there is going to be this one-year period, it should start from the date of the last act of actual block evasion, whatever that was. Don't use technicalities and bureaucracy as weapons. Everyking (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everyking it has been made clear to this user many times that posting excessive appeals online is block evasion. They can appeal to

WP:UTRS, the the reality is that they have already had several appeals. This was actual block evasion, not just a technicality. HighInBC 02:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I find the obsession with lengthening this user's "no appeals" period, by counting appeals as edits that push back the time when an appeal can actually be considered, to be disturbing. It seems a bit sadistic the way Thryduulf relishes each time the ban is extended, even if only by a single day or a matter of hours. Why does it matter if the date is 23 or 24 January 2017? Apparently it matters only to the extent that imposing a later date makes the banned user feel even more alienated and frustrated. Everyking (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Everyking, please don't assign such motives without having seen the evidence from Thryduulf's analyst's files. You're an admin: focus on edits, not editors. CC knows the rules, knows they broke them, knows they're not helping themselves--and you do too. The frustration is really with those who have tried to contain CC's disruptive edits, their socking, and their erratic appeals. Want to get unblocked? Follow the rules. Want to get unblocked sooner? Followed the rules sooner. The road to an unblock was mapped long ago. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope I didn't hurt Thryduulf's feelings. I still don't see why an extension of one day makes any difference at all, except as a way of asserting authority and further frustrating an already frustrated user. Anyway—where exactly was it established that appealing a ban under these circumstances counts as ban evasion, and that the "timer" should therefore be "reset"? Is this written down somewhere? Was there a discussion? You two seem to think this is crystal clear, but to me it seems awfully fuzzy. Intuitively, I wouldn't think a ban appeal would normally count as ban evasion, and it seems like there should be some kind of discussion about it before we go slapping somebody around. Everyking (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why people have difficulty with the concept that editing Wikipedia while banned from editing Wikipedia is a breach of the ban? This is not unique to CC's ban, but is applied to everybody whose ban or block is conditional on not making any edits for a given period of time (and this is standard for anyone blocked for socking, and not unusual for blocks due to other reasons). In such circumstances appeals may only be made by email - CC knows this as he appealed by email on at least 1 occasion during 2014 and on at least 2-3 occasions during 2015 that I know about. In each case the appeal was declined as he did not meet the conditions set by the community - and neither BASC nor the functionaries felt that Wikipedia would benefit from waiving them. If you wish to change the conditions of his ban, or believe he should be unbanned, then propose this in the correct location and see if there is a community consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I do not understand why some editors can have multiple accounts while other editors cannot. Either everyone here gets to do this, or no one does! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 16:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unless otherwise restricted, pretty much anyone may have multiple accounts per

WP:SOCK#LEGIT. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

CC, don't pretend that you don't know what

Wikipedia:Sock puppetry reads; "Everyone knows socking means you pretend to be someone else" is nonsense, and so I am not a liar. This is the kind of behavior ("Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address") that ensures you continue to be blocked, and if anyone wanted they could reset your clock again. If you want me to become one of those editors who stick to the letter of the law, by all means continue to call me a liar and leave insulting messages on my talk page. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

As of now they are still engaging in block evasion. HighInBC 04:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And now reset to 6 February per [11]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculously petty and completely unhelpful. Surely there is a better way to deal with this user than repeatedly lengthening blocks by a few days. Everyking (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a better way to deal with it, namely, by CC refraining from evading his block. CC knows the consequences of the continued block evasion, but can't (or won't) abide by policy. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Since he insists it isn't socking since he always admits it's him doing the evading, and throws a fit every time someone calls it socking, all we can do is play along with that concept and track the ban evasion here. What is accomplished by this is trying, against all hope, to get Colton to understand the situation and actually go away for at least a year before appealing, and not to evade the ban to do so in the future. Complaining about the tracking of that ban evasion is what is unhelpful. Unhelpful to Colton, unhelpful to Wikipedia, unhelpful to yourself.

talk) 21:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

It's petty bureaucratic abuse, pushing back the date a few days at a time as some silly show of power. I must also point out that if the goal is to deter him from editing, it doesn't seem to be working. Have you considered that if someone is banned for a year, it is probably going to be meaningless to them whether their ban is extended by a few days (or any time at all, perhaps)? And that therefore perhaps it is accomplishing nothing except stroking the egos of the types who like to indulge in things like resetting block timers and "tracking ban evasion". Everyking (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You and I hold different opinions regarding appeal reset, Everyking, but your protests have devolved into unfounded accusations. You've stated your position, as I would hope anyone with a conscience would, but it's time for you to move on. Perhaps you can find traction for your views at a different forum. If you decide to take that course please avoid making the issue personal. Tiderolls 10:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reset once more to February 24 following your series of posts to ANI, e.g. this. Favonian (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The earliest date for an unban appeal has been reset to 17 May 2017 per [12]. Tiderolls 06:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• More evasion Special:Diff/727849768 — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• And the clock yet again re-starts: [13]. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to

For the limited and singular reason of allowing this user to log in and formally request an unban, I am restoring this talk page access temporarily, as a show of good faith. If any abuse of this privilege occurs, it will be revoked. Colton, please make your formal unban request below, and I, or another admin, will take this to the appropriate venue. --Jayron32 17:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colton cosmic is not eligble to have an appeal considered until 12 months after his most recent edit, and has been reminded of this on many occasions. Today they made an edit as an IP at Jimbo's talkpage [14]. The block log for that IP address indicates that he also evaded his ban in October. No appeal can therefore be considered until 3 November 2017 or 12 months after his most recent edit, whichever is later. Accordingly I'm revoking talk page access again. Thryduulf (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On or after 3 November 2017 (UTC) you (Colton Cosmic) may appeal using

If you make an appeal to UTRS on or after 3 November 2017 (UTC) and receive no response within 7 days you may then appeal to the Functionaries. Premature appeals to Functionaries (i.e. before 11 November 2017 (UTC)) will be declined and will reset the clock and this may be done without explicit communication to you. Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Colton has violated these terms today. As a result, the clock to allow him to request an unblock has reset. He may now not request an unblock until 26 June 2018. See [15]. --Jayron32 20:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Colton has violated these terms again today, based on now suppressed diffs at

WP:ANI (I presume the suppression was not related to Colton's edits, but something else that happened there). This would reset the unblock timer to 24 November 2018. Please remove this post if I am incorrect. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Again today with this repeat performance. Clock reset; next opening 28 November 2018. Favonian (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And with this edit here, we again reset the clock to 1 December 2018. If you truly want to be unbanned, stop immediately. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clock reset to January 18, 2019. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Due to block evasion using using a sockpuppet the time is reset to 7 May 2019. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]