Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colton Cosmic

To remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 22:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



''Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.''

Statement of the dispute
and disagree on whether Colton's editing constitutes a form of sockpuppetry (WP:ILLEGIT). Timotheus Canens indefinitely blocked Colton on 15 May, 2012, stating; "undisclosed alternate accounts may not edit project space."

Desired outcome

 * 1) An expression by RFC/U participants as to the accuracy of the socking charge.
 * 2) Should Colton remain blocked for the original socking charge.
 * 3) An examination of Colton's block-evading edits subsequent to his block and what if anything should be done.

Description
Timotheus blocked Colton without warning, evidence in the form of diffs, or explanation at Colton's talkpage. The blocklog is the only place that Timotheus explains the reason for the block, "Abusing multiple accounts: WP:ILLEGIT; undisclosed alternate accounts may not edit project space." Colton states he is innocent of the charge. In his first edit, Colton acknowledged a previous Wikipedia 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 with the statement "User has appealed the block. This has been declined."


 * The block evasion and the notice board mentions do not pertain to the question of the initial block, they are presented here to present a complete picture of the situation.


 * Colton has been the subject of noticeboard discussions, some include:
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive247
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive792
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive255
 * Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive184
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive251
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive809
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive241
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive788


 * Colton evaded his block many times. A majority of the evasions have been to appeal the block.  Colton also evaded the block for other purposes, some include:


 * Discussing changes to policy
 * Discussing changes to policy again
 * Changing policy
 * Requesting unblock of another editor
 * Requesting unblock of another different editor
 * Discussing block of another editor
 * commenting on an ARBCOM election candidate
 * Commenting at ANI about another editor
 * trying to implement a new policy


 * Colton has contacted many admins over the time he has been blocked. In each case (except for one,  unblocked Colton 11 April 2013) the appeal has been denied.  Here is the final comments from the appeal made to Jimbo.  Multiple times Colton has been advised to take a 6 month break and then contact an admin to attempt WP:OFFER, Colton has rejected this.  Another option that Colton has rejected is to reveal the prior account to ARBCOM.  Colton did reveal his previous account to.

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 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 Rain City Superhero Movement. "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
WP:SOCK, WP:CLEANSTART, WP:CIV, WP:UNBLOCK, WP:EVADE.

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 "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.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * I have talked to Colton repeatedly about the issue this RFC is about, so I can verify that I have tried to resolve the issue beforehand. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  16:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly happy with the summary above; Colton's original block is not the entire story here. Nevertheless, there is an issue here which could use discussion, and previous attempts to resolve it have gone nowhere. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have been in discussions with Colton on his talk page recently, and there is certainly a dispute here. I am not convinced that RfC is the wisest course of action but it is the one Colton wants to pursue and on that basis I think this we should respect his choice and allow this RfC to run.  EdChem (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
''{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.}''



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.

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 this page's discussion page. 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 Worm That Turned (as an administrator)
I looked into the Colton Cosmic situation in depth back in April 2013. There are a number of factors missing from above, firstly, the Colton Cosmic account was not blameless - he was having a go at Nomoskedasticity within his first 100 edits, including targetting him at ANI. As there was no dispute with him within those earlier edits, it appeared to be a return to past disputes, explicitly against the clean start policy. Since being blocked, Colton Cosmic refused to follow normal procedures, evading it over and over again - causing a lot of difficulties for administrators. As such, I felt it was essential that he either disclose the original account and I was willing to offer confidentiality on that matter, or spend at least six months not evading the block and attempt to return under Standard Offer. I told him this by email at the end of April last year. It was at this point that he turned towards abusive, and I ended the conversation. To date, Colton has evaded the block regularly and has now asked at least "19 individual administrators" for them to review the situation - a severe case of I didn't hear that. It's worth noting the entire conversation at Floquenbeam's page, to get an idea of how Colton Cosmic works. In summary, this user should remain blocked. His actions prior the block made it clear he was a returning account who was not willing to abide by our clean start guidelines and his actions after the block have shown him to be a problematic editor.

Discuss this summary

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Worm TT( talk ) 09:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) This was the piece that violated cleanstart, and turned this account into an undisclosed sock instead  D  P  09:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) &mdash;Kww(talk) 00:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4)  Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 10:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 6)   D r e a m Focus  02:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) I'd also point out that Timotheus Canens used great discretion in avoiding disclosure of the alt.  Above and beyond. --DHeyward (talk) 06:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) Dougweller (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 10)  →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  17:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 11) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 12) --I am One of Many (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 13) BMK (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 14) Resolute 15:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 15) Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 16) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 17) JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Additional view by Worm That Turned (as a pragmatist)
There is an additional point with Colton Cosmic, he is technically skilled enough to perform a quiet return. We all know this, but don't like to say it - he could create a new account, start editing new articles and actually get on with improving an encyclopedia. The fact that instead he regularly evades and causes disruption implies that he's looking for something. We're not about "justice" here - we're about creating an encyclopedia. Colton doesn't seem to share that goal.

I write this view separately because it's not what a lot of people want to hear - quiet returns are no allowed. Endorsement of it directly disagrees with Wikipedia's policies and encourages socking. Yet, it is also a good description of the situation and very relevant to my thinking.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Worm TT( talk ) 10:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Yep. A true clean start (which would involve never mentioning Colton Cosmic, Timotheus Canens, Silktork, Rain City, or real life superheroes again) is always available. That Colton has elected not to do so indicates that he desires to stir things up rather than edit.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Concur.  A "clean start" is permitted.  As Worm That Turned explains, a "quiet return" is technically against the rules, but can reasonably be argued to be a case of ignore all rigid rules.  He is, for whatever reason, trying to return to editing with maximum drama rather than minimum drama.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Concur. A "quiet return" though technically against policy, could benefit Wikipedia if an editor behaves well. CC tends to fly-off-the-handle when others disagree, if he could moderate this type of behavior, he could make a successful "quiet return".  Finally, there is just too much drama associated with the Colton Cosmic account, so it might be best to permanently retire it. I am One of Many (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) This is a fairly sensible comment, and it's very obvious that Colton Cosmic just wants to create drama.  Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 10:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 6)   D r e a m Focus  02:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Failing to disclose alt and then asking for input on WP:ILLEGIT is a non-starter.  Claiming it's for privacy and then using the CU discretion for privacy to infer misuse is strike two.  Fighting a block for 2 years to save an account that directly linked him to his previous/private account is strike three.  Not believable that privacy is that big a concern if he wants to retain his linked anonymous account when he has the ability to return quietly without the link and is not uncomfortable defying the block policy.  --DHeyward (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) Well said. Ceoil (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 10) Endorse and agree with DHeyward. Dougweller (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 11)  →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  17:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 12) Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC).
 * 13) This had occurred to me as well, but I don't think CC would be able to resist edit-warring on his past targets (Phoenix Jones, etc); hence we have the same old forum-shopping and wiki lawyering. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 01:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 14) BMK (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Deeply cynical outside view by Robert McClenon
Colton Cosmic, or whoever he really is, has evidently said to the ArbCom and others that this is an alternate account for which he seeks an unblock, and for which the primary account was never blocked or banned. In that case, he doesn't even need either a clean start or a quiet return. Why can't he edit from the supposedly intact primary account? Why can't he at least use the primary account to right the Great Wrong of blocking the alternate account? Because the primary account is banned, maybe? The claim that he is only seeking to enable a blocked alternate account when he has a primary account is incredible in the etymological sense of unbelievable, that is, not worthy of belief by a reasonable human being. That is my guess, that everything that he says is true except that the primary account (which he won't disclose) was in good standing. If it were in good standing, why isn't he using it?


 * 1) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Good points. He had very edits made with this account other than the one article he kept edit warring and arguing at.  So why try so hard to reclaim it if he had another?   D r e a m Focus  02:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) That IS a good point. Colton's asking for a lot of trust from the community while at the same time expecting everyone to swallow a story that on the face of it doesn't really make much sense. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) I'm surprised this doesn't have more supports/endorses, because it is a very valid statement indeed. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Outside view by Blackmane
I periodically browse CAT:RFU for no real reason other than curiosity and it was this that led me to CC's block. Seeing T.Canens' block on CC I was of the thought "ah another sock block" however, upon reading through the talk page messages I was somewhat troubled by the rationale behind the block. CC admitted that this was a second account and that he had abandoned the previous one for privacy reasons. What followed has been laid out above. I don't doubt that T.Canens felt he was performing his function as an admin to dispense with socks per policy, but was WP protected from abusive socking by the blocking of CC at the time? Was the CC account an abusive sock? Looking at the past threads on CC's block, there was a serious lack of evidence presented pertaining to their being anything of the sort. (Excluding anything I, and other non-admins, are not privy to)

Fast forward to now and CC has made a major of nuisance of himself in his continuing quest to clear his name. The solution to this situation has always been in CC's court and that is to reveal their original account to ArbCom. Statements of the "This is an alternate account. I have an original account but won't tell anyone, but please take my word that I am under no sanctions nor was banned or such" ilk has led to the community being burned way too many times for it to just take at face value anymore.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Blackmane (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

View by Lukeno94
It is potentially possible that the Colton Cosmic account was originally a legitimate clean start account. However, it appears that they got themselves embroiled in a dispute with an old foe, and then became abusive to people who asked a reasonable question; who were you originally? Since then, CC has demanded to be unblocked so many times that it has bordered on harassment, and seems simply unable to drop the stick and move on. Having read their first edit, which is to their own talkpage, they were still talking about the dispute (in non-specific terms) which caused them to swap accounts, which is definitely against the spirit of a clean start (by all means, declare that you are creating a clean-start account, but don't use that account to immediately make a mini-soapbox piece). A bit of research into some of their disputes shows a very poor grasp of BLP; in fact, the claim that this violates BLP is so bizarre that I begin to wonder if CC had some kind of COI (paid or otherwise) with regards to this article. The fact that he was still making the same sort of edit 7 months later also suggests that. Honestly, I'm not seeing any reason to allow this user back; even if they were legitimate at first, their subsequent disruption has been a massive net negative, and I seriously doubt CC's ability to drop their old disputes and move on - let's not forget, this started over 18 months ago. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 10:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this summary

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)  Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 10:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2)   D r e a m Focus  02:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Yup.   D  P  12:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 6)  →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  17:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) BMK (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) Resolute 15:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 10) Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 11) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 12) JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

View by Nomoskedasticity (involved, apparently)
IIRC, the Phoenix Jones thing came to my attention via BLPN; it was apparent to me that ColtonCosmic had some excessive sort of interest in that person, while I didn't care about it except in regard to keeping the article compliant with BLP. I found CC's actions disruptive, before the block and then after. CC's appeal here doesn't show any understanding of the substantive issue, focusing instead on the alleged defects of the process that led to his being blocked. I don't see any good reason to depart from the status quo. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2)   D r e a m Focus  02:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) +1  D  P  13:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5)  →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  17:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) OhNo itsJamie  Talk 00:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Resolute 15:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Outside view by Wikid77
It seems fairly obvious, upon review, how there is insufficient evidence to support claims of wp:ILLEGIT wp:SOCK, and so the indef block was not appropriate. We certainly should not keep badgering to have user CC identify his prior real-name or known-nick-name username, as that could lead to wp:Outing of a private identity. Instead, focus forward on "fixing the problem not the blame". Furthermore, I think user CC should be unblocked, and perhaps start a dialog on user's talk-page about helping to reform policies, or perhaps help to unblock other users who might have been prematurely blocked, among the prior 261,000 blocks. The trouble with harsh reactions to the block, or potential evading of the block, can be explained as typical "righteous indignation" of a person who has been unfairly blocked for over 10 months, and the tensions have merely escalated despite some who might wish for the user to quietly fade away. Recall how some people who have been wrongfully convicted have resented the events for years or decades, and pretending such people should "quietly resume" activities is totally contrary to real-world actions where such people tend to join groups to overturn other wrongful convictions. Anyway, I judge the block to be improper and should be overturned to unblock. Period. Other concerns should be addressed at the user's talk-page, with real evidence as diff-links, not bad-mouthing as imagined trouble which has not occurred yet. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) As author. Wikid77 (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) DES (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3)  &rarr;  Stani  Stani  06:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email)  07:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5)  Konveyor   Belt  18:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Peter&#160;James (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

View by DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves
First, I find that there is insufficient information here for anyone in the community to fully investigate a "Request for Comment on a User". User is defined not as an account or userid, but the person behind the keyboard who is in charge of the account(s) on Wikipedia - for example, when we block an account, we actually block the person, which is why WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE exist. As such, to be able to fully investigate the user, then all possible accounts must be disclosed.

This is especially true when the locus of the issue revolves wholly around the previous account or accounts held by Colton Cosmic.

I personally am all in favour of the WP:CLEANSTART concept - users who have gotten themselves into a slight mixup, or who have possibly self-identified are wise to start fresh under the conditions that are both mentioned in Cleanstart AND the ethical purposes surrounding that guide. However, if it very easy to violate Cleanstart, by a) returning to the same or similar article topics, or b) by starting/continuing battles with anyone who was involved in either those topics OR any other battles. Even minor violations of Cleanstart therefore make the "new" account a sock account.

Colton Cosmic is simply saying "trust me, my old account was not blocked or under restrictions, and I have not returned to any topics (broadly construed) under my new account, nor am I continuing or starting any battles with anyone I met under my previous account". As much as we WP:AGF, it's not a toboggan that we are forced to ride into the woods: trust is earned. How then has Colton earned our trust?


 * he has repeatedly engaged in block evasion - literally dozens of times (if not even hundreds by now)
 * he has repeatedly e-mailed various admins, hoping to find one who will over-ride community consensus
 * he is even canvassing on his usertalkpage right now - using the echo function to ping editors that might come to his aid in this RFC.

Colton has even had a "conversation" with Jimbo. He apparently advised Jimbo of his "previous account" and based on his own investigation, determined that he would not undo the block - when your appeal to Jimbo fails (and he's usually pretty open on these types of cases), then you know that something's "up".

The rules apply to everyone, equally - and the end does not justify the means. Colton has been repeatedly been offered the standard offer as a way to build up his trust level throughout the community. Instead of doing so, he simply rails against those who suggest it, and immediately returns to block evasion. I'd say he has lost the opportunity for OFFER lightyears ago because of his behaviour since.

So - either give us all the information needed to help you, so that we may begin to trust you, or leave the community alone. If your old account "outs" you, then email a Bureaucrat *first* and ask for it to be renamed to something non-identifying, then give it to us - the edits will still be attached to it for our perusal.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) As author.   D  P  15:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2)  Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Exactly on target.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Summed what I was getting at but more succinctly. Blackmane (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 6)  →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  18:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) I read through all the opinions and this one most matches my own. I strongly believe in second chances but don't understand the reluctance to be forthcoming with alternate accounts. There is a way to return from a block and this isn't it.  Liz  Read! Talk! 00:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) I am One of Many (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 10) OhNo itsJamie  Talk 00:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 11) BMK (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 12) Resolute 15:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 13) Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 14) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 15) JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Outside view by Anthonyhcole
The editor had a block-, sanction- and warning-free record[] but decided to do a clean start due to privacy and harassment concerns. To allay the concerns of anyone who saw this "new editor" editing like a pro, he left a clear explanatory statement on his user page.[] Between creating the account on 15 February 2012 and 3 May 2012, CC made constructive edits to various biography, music and other articles.
 * Summary:

On 4 May he began work on Phoenix Jones. In this series of edits, citing WP:BLP, he three times removed mentions of the subject's everyday identity and an arrest that had resulted in no charges, and was reverted by User:Dream Focus. Nomoskedasticity brought CC to WP:AN/3RR but no action was taken; after which CC proposed a clarification of wording at WT:3RR. A newish editor began socking on the article CC, Dream Focus and Nomo were working on and CC, baffled by the block of the sock, challenged the block. Unhappy with the explanations, he suggested clarification of the policy at WT:SOCK. When he noticed Beeblebrox's WP:ROPE, he mistook it for a policy or guideline and left a scathing critique of it on WT:ROPE. When he realised his mistake, he apologised there, and left an apology on Beeb's talk page. After having been treated poorly by Nomo for nine days, he told Nomo exactly what he thought of him.

Based on the above behaviour only, and a mistaken feeling that the user may be a particular editor under arbcom sanctions[] Timotheus Canens blocked him.

CC can be cheeky, and some of his comments are rather blunt. But he has done nothing in the above to deserve a block. User:Timotheus Canens appears to have interpreted CC's dressing-down of Nomo as evidence of resurrecting old feuds, not realising Nomo had been sufficiently unpleasant to CC in the short time CC was active for CC to have formed a very negative opinion of him. The rest has been
 * admins unwilling to admit that they or a colleague could have been mistaken. Timotheus Canens was on BASC when CC appealed, and when he asked if Canens would recuse, he got no reply. The appeal to ArbCom seems to have been hopeless: Silk Tork's (the arb who took the case) position was, "tell all us strangers, and anyone who ever has access to this proven insecure mailing list, your former user name so we can prove you're not this troll Timotheus Canens mistakenly feels you are."[]
 * and CC, acting out of a well-founded sense of injustice and hurt.

CC's behaviour after the block has been less than ideal, from the project's perspective, and I was teetering on making point 3 a qualified yes. But given the sequence of events and the very, very unsatisfactory nature of the block and his treatment in the aftermath, and given that he has displayed no truly noxious behaviour - apart from a propensity to tell admins in wikispace when their behaviour could improve - I decided on three nos. If someone can bring forward something other than dark innuendo and what's presently evident to support a ban or block, I'll naturally reconsider.


 * 1) Is the original socking charge sound? No.
 * 2) Should Colton remain blocked for the original socking charge? No.
 * 3) Should anything be done about his subsequent behaviour? No.

CC's 133rd edit to Wikipedia under that account was this comment on 13 May 2012, appraising User:Nomoskedasticity in an ANI discussion:"Bah, Nomo., you're a provocateur who racks up warnings and blocks like notches on his belt or her purse strap, and the worst example of Jimbo Wales' fear that it was going to be Usenet. Have you ever created anything of value for the project at all?" Two days later, User:Timotheus Canens blocked him with the comment, "Abusing multiple accounts: WP:ILLEGIT; undisclosed alternate accounts may not edit project space", later citing that ANI thread and other unspecified "delightful contributions to project space discussions" as the basis for the block under WP:ILLEGIT, point 3: "Editors must not use alternative accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus. This includes ... (point 3) Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections."

These are the project space threads CC contributed to up to his block:
 * WP:BLPN#Phoenix Jones (4 comments)
 * WP:BLPN#Race in lede? (1 comment)
 * WP:AN/3RR#User:Colton Cosmic reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: stale) (3 comments)
 * WP:PUF#2012 May 8#File:Pj quick.jpg (1 comment)
 * WP:Third opinion (1 comment)
 * WT:SOCK#"Topic area" sockpuppet permanently blocked (17 comments)
 * WT:ROPE#Useless belly-gazing article (2 comments)
 * WT:EW#Propose policy change: a "bright line" rule can't punish edits outside the 24-hour period (5 comments)
 * ANI#User:RhymeNero (2 comments)
 * WP:ANI#Andrew Nikolić (6 comments)

I've read them all several times and nothing indicates CC is using more than one account.

In his first comment to CC, Nomo told him his BLP argument was preposterous. In his third he told him to "kindly refrain from taking us as fools." Later: "What exactly was I wrong about, darling?"

Discuss this summary

Users who endorse this summary
 * 1) Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC) Updated[] 03:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) DES (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3)  &rarr;  Stani  Stani  07:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4)  Konveyor   Belt  18:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Peter&#160;James (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) NE Ent 23:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Probably involved view from Writ Keeper
As a certifier of the dispute, I probably count as involved; I've had a few run-ins with CC before, so I guess it's justified, but I don't think I bear them any particular good- or ill-will, nor he to me. Anyway:

I really don't think the original block is the only thing people should be considering here (as I alluded in my certification): I think that CC's actions post-block might provide enough justification to decline an unblock. Evading one's block in order to appeal it, while it is definitely block evasion and against the rules, is not totally awful; it really doesn't bother me all that much, and on its own, I wouldn't consider it an absolute impediment to an unblock. Certainly, CC has been annoying about it, hopping from "parent" to "parent" trying to find the one that will say yes to him, and that more than the mere fact of evading a block to appeal it could be considered reason to keep the block. But more importantly, the problem is that, since being blocked, CC has evaded their block to do more than just appeal it. The example of this that I was personally involved in was the one at Youreallycan's talk page. The background is that YRC had been community-banned in the past, and though I don't recall very significant interaction between myself and YRC before then, I had had his talk page on my watchlist for some reason or other. Because of that, I had noticed a comment on his talk page that seemed to me to be gravedancing (in the Wikipedia sense). I reverted it a couple of times, leaving a note on the user's talk page each time. A couple weeks later, CC restored the comment (along with a third-party unblock request) with the edit summary "revert abusive uncommented revert". The third-party block request was ill-advised, to say the least; if absolutely nothing else, a community ban can't be overturned by an unblock request. But the real point is the restoration of the comment. As far as I could tell, CC did it because they felt that I hadn't explained why I reverted it. I had commented, I just hadn't used the edit summary to do so. I left the comment on the user's talk page instead. And even if I hadn't, that was still no reason to restore the comment. CC and I discussed this on a thread on 's talk page, which can be found here. Obviously, I think this is problematic in its own right, but another point is that CC has evaded their block to do things other than appealing it, and given their IP-hopping nature, it's practically impossible to look at their entire edit history since the block to see what else they've done. So, in the end, I'm a little torn, but I think I agree with the general gist of DangerousPanda's post. On the one hand, I do have a certain inclination to simply unblock and let CC's future actions stand on their own, and the mere fact that CC has tried all this time to unblock their original account without simply creating a sock account is rather promising. But the two problems that I see with that is that: A) CC hasn't shown a willingness to just let things go, and B) I've seen problematic editing/block evasion from CC, and with the IP hopping, I have no real way to determine the extent of it. So, for me, (apart from my own private suspicions which are unproven and thus best left unsaid,) I can't really justify supporting a change in the status quo without more evidence. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC) Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) --I am One of Many (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) —Odysseus 1 4 7  9  05:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

NE Ent
I find it disturbing a then admin / now arbitrator doesn't actually understand a key Wikipedia policy (as indicated by their bogus edit summary in the block log, "Abusing multiple accounts: WP:ILLEGIT; undisclosed alternate accounts may not edit project space"). WP:VALIDALT clearly lists a couple examples (privacy, cleanstart) where alt accounts may edit. NE Ent 23:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) NE Ent 23:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2)  Konveyor   Belt  17:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Peter&#160;James (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. 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.