Colton Cosmic

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

Colton Cosmic (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

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

Decline reason:

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

what violation?

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

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

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

He or she filed a trumped-up and frivolous WP:3RR complaint against me that met with failure, not even a warning. The person evidently has made an hobby of such tattling. Perhaps one day it'll be well and justly met with WP:BOOMERANG. Colton Cosmic (talk) 10:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the complaint was in no way frivolous; you are, in fact, edit warring, and you're doing so in a way that falls under disruptive editing, as at least 3 editors clearly disagree with your changes to the page—regardless of how correct or well-sourced you believe them to be. You can either choose dispute resolution, including using the article's talk page to discuss what you'd like to change and establishing consensus for the changes, or risk getting blocked. --slakr^\ talk / 21:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I advised Slakr on his talkpage that the breakout of the editors who, even arguably, opined whether Phoenix Jones should be categoried under "superhero" was two against two, rather than what Slakr said. I invited Slakr to acknowledge this on my talkpage, but as yet he has not done so. Colton Cosmic (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Pj quick.jpg

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

License tagging for File:Rcsm 5.jpg

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

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

May 2012

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. [2] Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I called you "provocateur" for your pattern of seeking blocks of others and asked you, not really rhetorically, whether you had ever contributed a productive edit. I think whether that was "personal attack" under policy depends not only on my words but also on your edit history.[3][4] [5] (for record, the second content linked to has been abridged). Please stay off of my talkpage except to advise me when you lodge complaints against me. Colton Cosmic (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

If you interacted with Nomoskedasticity under your prior account it could be argued you're socking by commenting on them at ANI -- in any event let's keep the focus in the ANI thread on YRC and please refrain from similar comments in the future. Nobody Ent 21:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not interact w. Nomo. under my prior account. Colton Cosmic (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

About my potential block

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

Speaking of your edit record, was your previous account subject to any editing restrictions from ArbCom or the community? MastCell ^Talk 19:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

MastCell, who wants to know? Colton Cosmic (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Me, obviously. MastCell ^Talk 21:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have an arrest record? Colton Cosmic (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

No. Was your previous account subject to any editing restrictions from ArbCom or the community? MastCell ^Talk 23:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

No. Colton Cosmic (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Colton Cosmic (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was no-warn no-discussion blocked for sockpuppetry. The charge is utterly false. The admin (it's "Timotheus Canens"[6])shows no awareness in his comment of WP:CLEANSTART and the investigation was evidently done on whim or idle suspicion. Repeating myself a bit, but you can look at all the chronological stuff at the bottom. Yeah, I deleted a guy's comments who wants to hang out here for some reason even after I asked him to go (he says I'm "choosing my ban," which I disagree with) but I put his comments back, it's all there.

Decline reason:

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

---

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

I've moved your unblock request to the bottom of this page, so it fits chronologically and so that the discussion with Mastcell may inform a review of your block. I also note that complaining about sub-standard admins isn't likely to improve your chances of an unblock. Focus on your conduct, please. You admit that your account is a new one created as part of a CLEANSTART for a non-specified older account. If the old account continued to edit, this is a sock and was properly blocked. If not, but this new account continued to edit the same sorts of subjects as the old account, it may still be a violation. How recent was the cleanstart? Has the old account continued to edit? Have you stayed involved with similar subjects? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Ultraexactzz, fair enough but I reserve the option to organize my talk page as I see fit as long as I am not blocked from doing so. My observation (I don't know if it was a complaint) about sub-standard admins occurred before my block. In answer to your questions, the recentness of the cleanstart is of course measured from my first edit under this user ID. The answer to whether the old account has continued to edit is contained up above, and I stand by that. I don't mind repeating myself now and then: "To assuage any concerns, I hereby state that I will not edit any article under this account that I edited under the previous, neither will I even access the previous account except should there be unforeseen circumstance, in which case I will make notification here, at this page." Lastly, "have I stayed involved with similar subjects..." wow. I don't think so, I think my edits have been on wholly dissimilar subjects, but that language is vague, and over time if I were allowed to, you'd probably be able to argue some sort of connection. Colton Cosmic (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:CLEANSTART specifically enjoins editors to avoid contentious and highly scrutinized areas. In your first couple dozen edits with this account, you edit-warred on a controversial BLP, challenged a checkuser's findings of sockpuppetry and then made a federal case of it on the related policy talkpage, attacked an essay as "useless belly-gazing utterly defective", and attacked another editor in highly personal terms on AN/I ([7]). That's not exactly a convincing effort at the sort of low-profile clean start envisioned in policy.

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

Mastcell has gone through my edit record, ignoring the positive to spotlight things he thinks show me in a bad light, but I do give him credit for at least hyperlinking those comments, which I suggest you read before accepting his argumentative characterizations of them. Colton Cosmic (talk) 11:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC) PS: As well, the reason I "edit-warred" (I say it consisted of two reverts) on the BLP he's talking about was to protect the living person, who is a private person, and his family, and I did not realize the article was "controversial" at the time, if it was. Colton Cosmic (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It is accurate I used those words about WP:ROPE essay but I never meant anything personal by it, mistaking it for policy or guideline, and I apologized after to the essay author. And I realized his or her essay was more than I thought on first read. Colton Cosmic (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC) PS: Thank you for your attention, but shut up MastCell, or confirm the ban. Colton Cosmic (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If you're serious about wanting to edit again, send an e-mail to your most-trusted admin and give full disclosure of your previous incarnation(s) here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Baseball Bugs, I choose not to do that. If you're an admin, go ahead and confirm the ban if you agree w. it. Colton Cosmic (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, nor do I understand what you mean by "confirm the ban". In any case, I do have a short list of admins I consider trustworthy enough to tell things in confidence. If you want to edit here again, you ought to give that idea some consideration. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Baseball, this discussion is about whether I will be banned from Wikipedia forever on the basis of what Timotheus Canens said. Colton Cosmic (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No, the question is, "How badly do you want to edit wikipedia?" Talk to an admin you trust, behind the scenes, and let them determine the truth of the matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Baseball, please go back to whatever you were doing and do not comment on my talk page again. Colton Cosmic (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Roger. It's your funeral. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Baseball, if it is (which may be the case), you were not invited. Colton Cosmic (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

If you get banned, it's by your own choosing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

I may be willing to unblock as per WP:CLEANSTART, under the following conditions:

1. you e-mail me, and advise me of your previous account
2. that account was not currently blocked
3. any restrictions on that account will be immediately transferred to this one
4. this new account has NOT contributed to articles in the same subjects as the previous one, broadly construed (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Bwilkins, heh, I am happy to have you stalking my talkpage ;) and genuinely grateful for your attention to this important matter. 1) I tried to email you but I don't know your email address. But it's okay, I can answer you right here. 2) My previous account was not blocked or warned or anything like "Arb-Com" penalized whatever the heck that is, I just want to edit. 3) There were never any restrictions on that account (you're looking at me, but perhaps you should be looking at this "Timotheus Canens" entity, 4) I don't think I have edited articles in the same subjects as the previous, broadly construed. Please unban me right away. Colton Cosmic (talk) 07:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Without the names of all previous accounts, you have not lived up to your end of the bargain. It's deadly simple to e-mail me from my usertalk page. And obviously, any request that even remotely tries to deflect any "blame" from yourself onto another editor fails from the start. I'm willing to extend this offer once more - any BS like the above, and it's withdrawn and this talkpage is locked so that you don't waste any more of the community's time. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I like your talkpage but you're just talking rubbish, Canadian. I am not and will never be intimidated by your "talkpage is locked" threat. Colton Cosmic (talk) 10:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh heck, I realized that I should object to any facts-aware admin, before I am banned ("Timotheus Canens" and even my talkpage is prohibited, by "BWilkins" that it's a lie, I never sockpuppeted. Colton Cosmic (talk) 11:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)