User talk:Colton Cosmic: Difference between revisions
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Snowolf in topic Blocked
Content deleted Content added
m →BAN APPEAL: KONVEYOR BELT =: add notification only |
Blocked |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
-- [[User:Meta-Wiki Welcome|Meta-Wiki Welcome]] ([[User talk:Meta-Wiki Welcome|talk]]) 17:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC) |
-- [[User:Meta-Wiki Welcome|Meta-Wiki Welcome]] ([[User talk:Meta-Wiki Welcome|talk]]) 17:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC) |
||
== Blocked == |
|||
== Seeking an Unblock of my Account on English == |
|||
I have blocked as it is clear your only purpose here is to canvass for an unban on the English Wikipedia, trying to bypass enwiki's canvassing rules on Meta. None of this matter has anything to do with Metawiki, and the usage of this wiki for this purpose is clearly improper. <i><b>[[User:Snowolf|<font color = "darkmagenta">Snowolf</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Snowolf|<font color = "darkmagenta">How can I help?</font>]]</small></sup></b></i> 17:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
If anyone with administrative rights at English Wikipedia comes by here and is willing to consider unblocking me there, please go ahead and strike up a conversation here. I was wrongly blocked for socking (never did it). I've attracted a lot of hounders over there and you'd be taking a risk. See more at my userpage here. [[User:Colton Cosmic|Colton Cosmic]] ([[User talk:Colton Cosmic#top|talk]]) 13:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Letter petitioning WMF to reverse recent decitions == |
|||
The Wikimedia Foundation recently created a new feature, "superprotect" status. The purpose is to prevent pages from being edited by elected administrators -- but permitting WMF staff to edit them. It has been put to use in only one case: to protect the deployment of the Media Viewer software on German Wikipedia, in defiance of a clear decision of that community to disable the feature by default, unless users decide to enable it. |
|||
If you oppose these actions, please add your name to this letter. If you know non-Wikimedians who support our vision for the free sharing of knowledge, and would like to add their names to the list, please ask them to sign an identical version of the letter on change.org. |
|||
* [[Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer]] |
|||
* [http://www.change.org/p/lila-tretikov-remove-new-superprotect-status-and-permit-wikipedia-communities-to-enact-current-software-decisions-uninhibited Letter on change.org] |
|||
I'm notifying you because you participated in one of several relevant discussions. -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete F]] ([[User talk:Peteforsyth|talk]]) 22:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:I support the WMF locking down the javascript to stop the unruly and chaotic meddling with its attempt to modernize the viewing of media with the new component. I disagree with your implication that those "who support our vision for the free sharing of knowledge" should sign your petitions, and think that sounds a bit like an insincere advertisement. [[User:Colton Cosmic|Colton Cosmic]] ([[User talk:Colton Cosmic#top|talk]]) 15:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== COLTON COSMIC BAN APPEAL DISCUSSION HERE == |
|||
<b>Hi, I'm issuing invitations randomly to Wikipedians</b> and linking them here in hopes that they'll read up and opine on my ban appeal. I'm banned on English Wikipedia. You'll find background material on my meta user page as well as several places at Wikipedia English. I don't want to talk too much right here right now and would prefer (for now) to use this space to let you ask me questions that will inform you on my case. So, speak up, please! [[User:Colton Cosmic|Colton Cosmic]] ([[User talk:Colton Cosmic#top|talk]]) 16:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
<b>Okay, a little more expounding here.</b> I invited 18 administrators and 3 editors to this discussion, so far. I really think that most of them won't show up for one reason or other. I am hoping to get enough to constitute a "community opinion" to unblock me on English Wikipedia. Every other process I've tried has been immediately overwhelmed by my hounders. These are mainly people who watchlisted my talkpage, intent on arguing against any move by me to be unblocked. When you are researching my case, hopefully you will, do not assume that these unblock processes I've attempted are policy-compliant and by the book. I don't mean this as a "whine" or unjustified complaint, but I've never received a fair shot at being unblocked. Everything has always been dominated by my hounders, and blockamaniacs like the regulars at WP:AN/ANI. Particularly bothersome to me is that they consistently prohibit me from arguing in my own defense. They gag me. Let's have a reasoned discussion. If I am supposed to be some horrible mastermind sockmaster, they should be able to name at least one of my puppets. But they will never be able to, because there are none. Is any of this your problem, and won't you be sticking your neck out to help me? Oh, yes, but decide what you should do. [[User:Colton Cosmic|Colton Cosmic]] ([[User talk:Colton Cosmic#top|talk]]) 19:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:[[w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Colton Cosmic/Archive]] does not seem to be clear enough to justify banning you forever, but I dare not to unilaterally unblock you without consulting other English Wikipedia administrator.--[[User:Jusjih|Jusjih]] ([[User talk:Jusjih|talk]]) 02:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::[[User:Jusjih|Jusjih]], oh you are correct. <b>The way I hope it will work is:</B> |
|||
:::<b>1)</b> We get some discussion here, so that all taking part are informed about my case, and then |
|||
:::<b>2)</b> agreement in my favor is reached sufficient for an administrator to unblock. |
|||
::At least one other administrator should be ready to support the first. Thank you for commenting. Please stay involved. [[User:Colton Cosmic|Colton Cosmic]] ([[User talk:Colton Cosmic#top|talk]]) 14:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::Personally I would support your return but you have to remember I am not an editor in good standing either and I was railroaded by abusive admins so my vote isn't likely to carry much weight. Frankly, I think the culture of Wikipedia and the project itself are corrupted beyond repair and its unlikely to change. Even when my block expires in February I am probably only going to make an occassional edit. The project would rather protect the abusers and try and convince the victims that its their fault that fix the real problems and deal with the real abusers. So that's not really a site I want to participate in anyway until they fix that. Good luck though and don't give up the fight. They count on people just giving up and going away. The more people that fight for their case the better. [[User:Reguyla|Reguyla]] ([[User talk:Reguyla|talk]]) 12:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
==BAN APPEAL: KRAXLER AND PROTONK WANT THE FACTS== |
|||
:::Well, Colton, I didn't know anything about your case until you invited me to comment here. What I could gather from a quick check is: On your user page here you rant about "''domineering and insulting and bullying personalities''". As an expert psychologist, I can tell you that the very last thing domineering and insulting and bullying personalities want to hear is that they are domineering and insulting and bullying personalities. So, arguing ad hominem is, in my learned opinion, the wrong approach. See also NPA and AGF: if you really deserved to be unblocked, you would have shown that you can keep on arguing the issue instead of just attacking your "hounders". Seeing your block log on en.wiki doesn't inspire any confidence either. Several times you were unblocked, which confirms that there are admins who considered your side of the problem, but that you were unable to get along somehow. What about the BASC? Loaded with enemies? How about arguing the '''issue''' and refrain from any characterization of the involved parties? How about a mea culpa and describing in what way your editing would improve the mainspace of the encyclopedia, not just talk pages and forums. Sorry, I'd prefer not to do anything futher for you at this time. [[User:Kraxler|Kraxler]] ([[User talk:Kraxler|talk]]) 12:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{ping|Kraxler}} let me meditate for a moment that I may keep my response brief and cogent. To begin, I appreciate your critical comments and can understand why you'd object, or at the least why you object based on what you know so far. I'll get to the hounding stuff at the end, but engage some of your mistaken reasoning in the middle here. My block log is misleading. You assume that I did some fresh offense after being unblocked, but no. When Nihonjoe unblocked I said almost literally no more than "thanks, and I will try to live up to your confidence in me," before being reblocked after someone reported the unblock to WP:AN/ANI. As to BASC, it is a fact that my original blocker sat there, refused to recuse, and my appeal denied without explanation. It is reasonable for me to fault these incidents. With regard to your reference mea culpa and account of my positive qualities as an editor, I'll point you to my statement at my RFC/U: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Colton_Cosmic#Response]. You will see that I am capable of admitting my flaws, but do not take this to mean that my predicament is my own darn fault. Okay, now moving to the hounding question. I disagree that I've engaged in ad hominem by saying abusive personalities are drawn to the WP:AN/ANI environment. Really you have to name names to engage in ad hominem, that's what it means: "at the person." I'm ready to give concrete examples, but it would take time and be a distraction. Perhaps you think that I am way offbase, that kindhearted and reasoning people are drawn to WP:AN/ANI, that they are a perfect representative example of "the community" as they always call themselves. But, on long observation, I disagree with you there. Still ready to answer your questions, and hope you change your mind about me. [[User:Colton Cosmic|Colton Cosmic]] ([[User talk:Colton Cosmic#top|talk]]) 16:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
* Links to the ban/block discussions would be helpful here. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 15:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
** also stop evading the block to message random editors and admins. It's not likely to make en-wp admins interested in unblocking your account. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 15:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::I tried to get some participation, are you telling me you just happened to stop by a few minutes after I did that? I am wrongly blocked with no other avenue of appeal. No fair-minded person is going to much fault clearly-identified and polite block evasion, I have no choice. [[User:Colton Cosmic|Colton Cosmic]] ([[User talk:Colton Cosmic#top|talk]]) 15:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC) PS: If you want links, there's one in the middle where I responded to Kraxler above, and you can also see the account at my userpage here on Meta. You can research as you see fit, and I'll answer any specific questions you have. |
|||
::::I just happened to stop by because you posted a note on a user talk page I watch. That doesn't mean I'm super inclined, having seen that notice, to support a block appeal. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 15:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Well, all I ask is that you make an evidence-based and policy-based decision. I see you're an administrator and yes I could use your support. If another administrator unblocks me, he or she will run into opposition from my hounders, and will need somebody backing him or her up. [[User:Colton Cosmic|Colton Cosmic]] ([[User talk:Colton Cosmic#top|talk]]) 16:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: Permit me to offer some tactical advice. Using IPs to ask that random administrators review your block is probably not going to work. It's liable to piss people off and will be considered block evasion by most administrators. We could argue about whether that's just or right but from the standpoint of your self-interest it's a bad move. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 21:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: Protonk, I am willing to read your tactical advice, but I already told you I have no other option. [[User:Colton Cosmic|Colton Cosmic]] ([[User talk:Colton Cosmic#top|talk]]) 23:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
==BAN APPEAL: DEBATE ON STANDARD OFFER== |
|||
I have not looked into this in any detail, but is there a reason why you wouldn't consider pursuing the [[:w:WP:OFFER|standard offer]]?—[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky)]] • ([[User talk:Ezhiki|yo?]]); September 25, 2014; 16:06 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Ezhiki}} Yes, and <b>thank you for allowing me to explain why the standard offer won't work:</b> |
|||
::<b>1)</b> It's a repentance-based model (more critically "grovel" model) in which whoever it is is supposed to confess all his sins and bad behavior and pledge to do better. I was no-warn, no-evidence, no discussion permanently blocked for socking, but I never did it, so how shall I confess to it? |
|||
::<b>2)</b> It's just an essay and has no weight of policy. And even the essay only says the matter shall be brought up at WP:AN/ANI. There is no guarantee at all. |
|||
:So, there's no reason to imagine in a thousand years that the standard offer would help me. I'll also point out I've been blocked for two-and-an-half years without any offense really but clearly-identified IP block evasion, so why punish me more? And finally that I have a lot to contribute to Wikipedia in the next six months. [[User:Colton Cosmic|Colton Cosmic]] ([[User talk:Colton Cosmic#top|talk]]) 16:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::There's no repentance required in the standard offer. You're not required to grovel or anything, just not evade the block for 6 months. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 21:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{ping|Protonk}} thank you for expressing your say in my conversation with Ezheki. WP:OFFER says "Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban." How is this not repentance? And really, if it worked like what you say, why not just convert the permanent block to a six-month block? [[User:Colton Cosmic|Colton Cosmic]] ([[User talk:Colton Cosmic#top|talk]]) 23:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::Perhaps, because you're evading the block by using IPs to ask people to help you remove the block. Each time you do that, you're resetting the 6-month clock. [[User:Gentgeen|Gentgeen]] ([[User talk:Gentgeen|talk]]) 23:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Hi, {{ping|Gentgeen}} No, you didn't understand the question. If the standard offer were serious, then all blocks would be set at the beginning to six months, and extended only on evasion or other rule-breaking. There would be no need to come back in six months and have a discussion at WP:AN/ANI for all the regulars there to opine if whoever has been a good boy or girl. It would expire automatically. There's also the part that somebody whose Wikipedia email function has been cut off, as mine has, has to block evade even to ask. I assume you read as well the two reasons I wrote three paragraphs above why it's not really a reality. Finally if you need it, several administrators including two arbitrators have publicly said they would oppose standard offer in my case. [[User:Colton Cosmic|Colton Cosmic]] ([[User talk:Colton Cosmic#top|talk]]) 06:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
==BAN APPEAL: CONTINUED== |
|||
Please everybody, leave new comments in this section, as I am trying mightily to avoid "wall of text" problem where peoples' eyes glaze over at a massive bunch of dense paragraphs. Again, I am ready to answer any questions you have that might get me your support. Just ask. [[User:Colton Cosmic|Colton Cosmic]] ([[User talk:Colton Cosmic#top|talk]]) 06:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
: Just the one: why do you believe that you are likely to get a different response this time from when [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Floquenbeam&diff=584542448&oldid=584533932 you last tried this]? From what I can see, giving you the presumption that you're correct, this started as an incident of mistaken identity that promptly exploded into years of completely unnecessary drama due largely to the somewhat flawed logic that the best way to clear your name regarding accusations of ban evasion was to... evade the ban. If you'd taken the hint back then you'd have been an editor in good standing again for four months by now (assuming that this was the first time you'd ever heard of the standard offer). [[User:Thumperward|thumperward]] ([[User talk:Thumperward|talk]]) 15:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:: {{ping|Thumperward}} No, and <b>please stop! You're creating a fictional narrative that is very detrimental to me</b> because it'll confuse anyone who reads this discussion. I was blocked on accusation of socking, not ban evasion. I explained in the section above why "standard offer" is completely invalid and inapplicable. Please read it! Yes, when I was permanently blocked, my talkpage and email cut off, I resorted to clearly-identified (signed) raw IP edits because I had no other option. This argument you make that everything would be fine by now if I'd "taken the hint" months ago is simply not an accurate account of what happened. On your other remark, you link to where I asked Floquenbeam to unblock like a year ago. He said he was going to look into it and get back to me but never did. He did say somewhere in there that "perhaps I should be blocked because I am exhausting to talk to," which I found a non-policy and awful thing for an administrator to say to a long-time contributor that comes to him for help. I am proceeding differently here and do hope to get a better response. [[User:Colton Cosmic|Colton Cosmic]] ([[User talk:Colton Cosmic#top|talk]]) 07:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*This is an enwiki issue, and only enwiki can fix it for you, you can appeal to the arbitration committee, see [[en:WP:UNBAN]] for information. [[User:Xaosflux|<b><font color="#FF9933" face="monotype">xaosflux</font></b>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Xaosflux|<font color="#00FF00">Talk</font>]]</sup><font color="#888888"></font> 13:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Hi, {{ping|Xaosflux}}. WP:UNBAN says a ban may be overturned after a community discussion. This is a community discussion. I communicated with Arbcom, where my original blocker sat (and sits) and refused to recuse. It attempted to blackmail me into disclosing my online-privacy vulnerable prior account (its members said "tell us your prior account or stay blocked") in direct violation of WP:CLEANSTART policy. I now call your attention to The Anvil Email [http://encyc.org/wiki/Anvil_email], which is a representation of how Arbcom can treat a person about whom it acquires private information. A majority of the current arbs also supported arb AGK's threat to complain to Kumioko's employer, a threat which was carried out. Thus, I hope you will imagine yourself in my shoes, revisit the WP:UNBAN policy you call my attention to, see that I am right on it, and support my unbanning. [[User:Colton Cosmic|Colton Cosmic]] ([[User talk:Colton Cosmic#top|talk]]) 14:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC) PS: If there is suspicion in your mind about my prior account, Jimbo reviewed it and stated it was clear of blocks and bans, etc. |
|||
:This isn't a "community discussion" for the purposes of an unban as this isn't the enwiki community. A community discussion about your ban needs to take place on enwiki. [[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]] ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]]) 03:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
==BAN APPEAL: CALLANECC== |
|||
::::::Hi Colton, I know you asked below for further comments to be placed in the section below but what I wanted to say relates directly to this so I hope you don't mind me making it here and I also apologize the wall of text. For now I'm going to disregard whether the original block by Timotheus Canens was reasonable and/or appropriate as I haven't discussed it with him. Your actions since then are what has lead to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=618492436#Colton_Cosmic_-_block.2Funblock.2Fban_discussion.2Fclarification_thread ban discussion] on the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents. The comments by ''A fluffernutter is a sandwich!'' sum up the reasons for the ban. The majority of people in that discussion stated that you would need to wait at least one year with no sockpuppetry or block evasion before they would consider an unblock. Considering an unblock is the key to the standard offer, it is not that you ''will'' be unblocked after the time frame but that you're request will be considered and most likely accepted after that time. Instead of waiting one year (as was stated a number of times in the ban discussion) you waited less than two months and rather than requesting an unban discussion you again breached the community's trust by evading your ban with [[w:Special:Contribs/67.79.80.126|67.79.80.126]]. This resets the 'ban clock' for another year from the date of the last edit. Also given that after it having been blocked the first time you continued to edit (after the block expired) you may have made it less likely that you will be unblocked in one year. You've been told that you are not permitted to edit enwiki while blocked, you ignored it (cf. [[w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Colton Cosmic/Archive]]) and kept ignoring it. You were told in the ban discussion that you needed to wait one year and you ignored that as well. As someone said in that ban discussion you are [[w:WP:IDHT|not hearing]] what you're being told and are just making it worse for yourself. I'll comment about the original block in the section below. [[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]] ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]]) 03:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Hi, {{ping|Callanecc}} Thank you for these long comments. I will point out how you are relying on key assumptions that are incorrect. It illustrates a fundamental problem of these public processes that have been applied to me, mainly that I've largely been denied the opportunity to speak in my own defense, and so many people rely on the allegations alone. Your use of Fluffernutter and Wormthhatturned is a perfect example: they made factually wrong allegations, allegations fundamental to their reasoning, yet because I was denied the ability to respond and correct them, you too have bought into a fictional narrative of my actions. I'll explain. |
|||
*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). These three mistaken beliefs are the basis of her whole opinion there, and you bought right into them. To debunk them briefly: |
|||
**She is wrong that she ever considered my case on IRC. Was she lurking in the unblock channel when I talked it up to someone else there? Who knows? By stating at the outset that she reviewed my case, she gives an air of authority in the WP:AN/ANI discussion that others rely on. As you have. |
|||
** She is wrong that I never disclosed my prior account to anyone. Jimbo has it, and says (at my current talkpage, if you want to go look) it is unblocked, unsanctioned etc. with no obvious misbehavior. |
|||
** She is wrong that I ever voiced or implied concerns about my personal safety. I've pointed to online-privacy concerns only. It would actually be preferable to me if some cyberstalkery person confronted me in person, as opposed for example to the poisonous anonymous emails and phonecalls to family and employer that arbitrator FT2 did to Poetlister. |
|||
* Wormthatturned's, whose testimony you rely on as "quite helpful," entire premise is based on the ludicrous, and easily disprovable to anyone who examines the edit history, idea that I targeted Nomoskedasticity sufficient to show that I revisited conflict from my prior account. In fact the record rules it out, and frankly shows the reverse is true. |
|||
**I had edited the Phoenix Jones BLP for a week or so. I went to the BLP noticeboard with a polite question about it. At this point Nomoskedasticity participated in that noticeboard discussion, including telling me "you must be taking us for fools," a comment that took me aback in its tone as I had pointed constructively to a policy section. This was Nomo. and my first interaction, and this you can tell easily from the edit histories, or maybe using some edit comparison tool. Does this indicate I was "targeting" Nomo.? No. |
|||
**Then Nomo. followed it back the Phoenix Jones article, where he or she had never edited before, and as I said I had been editing for some time, as I said a week or so, or maybe it was more. I had read about him in the news and it was one of my interests. In this discussion, which I tried to keep constructive, for example digging up obscure image policy that no-one knew about, Nomo. sarcastically and baitingly referred to me as "darling." Does this indicate I was "targeting" Nomo? No? |
|||
**Nomo. then reported me to ANI on charge edit warring. This was my first experience there and Nomo. was an experienced reporter and arguer yet no administrator took action and one closed it as stale. At which point Nomo. went to the talkpage of the closer and urged him to reopen it and give me at least a warning. Does any of this really indicate to you that I was targeting Nomo.? No. |
|||
And so, Callanecc, you see you bought into this fictional narrative created by Fluffer and Worm and others, mainly in those environment where I was largely (sometimes somebody copy-pasted me etc.) denied the opportunity to speak in my own defense. With regard to the rest of your opinion above, which I hope you revise given the information I've just given you, the block evasion I've done has been my only option to contest my unjust and non-policy and non-factual block. Especially given my talkpage and email were cut-off. I was a solid content contributor for five or six years, and now to be treated this way? There was no other genuine way that I knew of to fight it. [[User:Colton Cosmic|Colton Cosmic]] ([[User talk:Colton Cosmic#top|talk]]) 11:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
==BAN APPEAL: CALLANECC, CONT'D== |
|||
*Regarding the initial block by Timotheus Canens, which at this stage is somewhat immaterial to what has happened since (though I do see where you are coming from regarding your belief that the block was not justified). As I said above I haven't discussed it with Timotheus Canens so I don't know the specifics. However some general points as Timotheus Canens wasn't a CheckUser at the time (appointed in December 2012) the block wasn't based on undisclosed CU evidence. The [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colton Cosmic|request for comment]] regarding you highlights some of the evidence which suggested this wasn't so much a cleanstart as an [[w:WP:ILLEGIT]] abuse of an alternate account. In particular the commentary by [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colton Cosmic#Outside view by Worm That Turned (as an administrator)|Worm That Turned]] is quite helpful at explaining some of the background. |
|||
:So to be unbanned to come back to the community: |
|||
:*'''Part one'''. As Worm said at the RfC given that it looks like you've targeted someone in you're first hundred edits you weren't following the spirit of [[w:WP:CLEANSTART]] nor likely the letter (as you're supposed to avoid prior areas and disputes) and so would need to disclose the prior account before unblock can be considered. Whether you disclose it to ArbCom, an admin or checkuser you trust and who is trusted by the community, or to Jimbo, they would need to state pubically that you have disclosed the original account to them and that you have not breached the requirements of [[w:WP:CLEANSTART]]. |
|||
:*'''Part two'''. Yu would then need to assure the community (likely through the standard offer with a year instead of 6 months away) that you will follow the community's norms, policies, etc (as you have broken the trust through violating both the [[w:WP:BLOCK|blocking]] and [[w:WP:BAN|banning]] (through evasion) policies. |
|||
:To ball park it for you: you were blocked by Timotheus Canens per WP:ILLEGIT, you appealed and were told you'd need to disclose the name of your original account, you refused and the appeal was declined. You evaded the block then got banned, then evaded you block again. Even if the original reason for the block was proved to be groundless you have, since then (in the eyes of some/most), lost the community's trust by evading the block and ban so you need to get this back before being allowed to return (hence standard offer but with one year rather than six months). [[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]] ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]]) 03:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ping|Callanecc}} Let me ball-park you back. I resist the idea I've violated the community's trust. I am convinced a representative group of Wikipedians, in a discussion where I'm allowed to equally participate, would see the truth that I've been unjustly and non-policy-treated. The WP:AN/ANI regulars that love to criticize and bash in "vote him off the island" proceedings in which the subject may not even speak, their actions are an embarrassing blight on Wikipedia. As well, though you may pooh pooh the idea, I've attracted long-term hounders, among them Worm that sandbagged my RFC/U within hours with two dominating text walls, and then joined those who denied me the opportunity to participate (which must be a first for RFC/Us). I'm prepared to offer you more evidence of hounding if you want it, just please do not continue under the misguided belief that what has happened to me has been fair, policy-based processes. It's more revealing of a broken system. I have already been blocked for two and an half years for something I didn't do, so perhaps you will change you mind that it is appropriate for me to endure more of it. Let me know if I can answer any questions that might inform you further. [[User:Colton Cosmic|Colton Cosmic]] ([[User talk:Colton Cosmic#top|talk]]) 12:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::Colton, my recommendation to you if you want to return, just wait a couple months without editing and create a new account. I realize you probably want to keep this one, but you will be branded for life and will never be more than what they view as a felon/banned editor. If they catch you just repeat the process as many times as necessary. I will say however that if you do so, edit constructively. As I mentioned below I am not intimately familiar with your case, but if the above is true and you were banned/blocked for a simple matter of failing to disclose an old account, then that IMO is petty to the point of childishness on the part of Arbcom. But then I have come to expect nothing less from them these days. They have become more worried about protecting their empire than doing what is beneficial to the project and they will manifest any escuse to do what they want to do or to ignore what they do not. I for one could not care less about whether you '''used to be''' a vandal, spammer, sockmaster or troll. If you are doing constructive edits now, then there is no reason to keep you or anyone else from doing them. People make mistakes, they get agitated and act rashly. I did it and so have many others. It does not mean that we are a detriment to the project, but that is how we will be perceived. The '''only''' reason I have not created a new account myself is because my technical abilities would make me visible pretty fast once I start editing. The list of people who can edit the Lua modules and the WikiProject banners is a short one, so its hard to hide. The point is, if you do edit, make sure its constructive and beneficial to the project. No one can prevent you from doing that if improving the project and articles is what you really want to do and if that is in fact what you are doing and they block you for it, then they need to leave the project because they are a hindrence and a detriment to it. [[User:Reguyla|Reguyla]] ([[User talk:Reguyla|talk]]) 20:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{ping|Reguyla}} thanks for commenting, but you've got a few things wrong about me (it's okay, it ain't easy to learn about a blocking victim's story). I never failed to disclose an old account, I actually disclosed it in my first edit. I said I had a prior account I abandoned for online privacy reasons. Despite my clearly stating I abandoned and wouldn't use the prior account, Timotheus Canens labeled Colton Cosmic an alternate and permanently blocked me. He did this without warning or explanation, other than clicking one of his button to point to WP:SOCK. I appreciate what you're saying about just start another account, in fact for most people I'd say that's the best option when faced with administrative abuse. However in my case I took some umbrage at being called a sock, so now I can't very well go and be one. There is also the fact that I want (now) to work on some things like the BLP optout proposal, so I would be recognized. [[User:Colton Cosmic|Colton Cosmic]] ([[User talk:Colton Cosmic#top|talk]]) 01:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== BAN APPEAL: KUDPUNG CLAIMS "THIS IS IRREGULAR" == |
|||
Colton, I came here because I saw many of your FYI pings on user talk pages I watch. I'm not interested in the reason why you were ever blocked and/or banned at en.Wiki, but the way you are going about attempting to be unblocked is highly irregular. Not only is every message you post on en.Wiki under any account or IP a block evasion, but in the worst case scenario you could be facing a global block across all Wikimedia projects. You know the rules about blocks/bans and how to appeal them. --[[User:Kudpung|Kudpung]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 12:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Kudpung}}. You know I like you Kudpung and I think you are a good guy and a good editor. I also realize this is going to come off as a bit of a rant on my part, but this is precisely what happens when you leaving editors no venue for return. I know, I have been there. Once you are banned, you are looked at like a felon in the community and everyone has the attitude, as you do here, that they don't care. They don't care why the person was banned, they don't care if they return, they don't care about whats good for the project, etc. The fact is, as someone who has been there myself, editors get banned for many reasons and often times for no reason at all. So you will excuse me if your comment comes off as assholish. If You and your fellow Wikipedia admins want to have a leadership role in the project then you have to show leadership. That includes allowing editors a venue for advocating on their behalf and being able to judge that fairly. I frankly don't know about the circumstances of his ban either and haven't had the time to look into them closely, but from hat I have seen, there was a lot of bad actions on the part of the people who banned him as well. Yet they are all still around because many of them are admins and above reproach and beyond Wikipedia policy. [[User:Reguyla|Reguyla]] ([[User talk:Reguyla|talk]]) 20:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ping|Kudpung}} it is a joke the way you say "you know the rules" and side against me. If you knew the rules you would know that WP:UNBAN says "bans imposed by the community may be appealed to the community." Every single person that has written on this page is foremost a member of the English Wikipedia community. When you talk about my being globally blocked, it does feel to me like an intimidation attempt that you will try tattling on me to some Meta administrator of your acquaintance. But I haven't broken any Meta rules, and in fact WMF executive director Lila Tretikov personally thanked me for some advice I offered her here. [[User:Colton Cosmic|Colton Cosmic]] ([[User talk:Colton Cosmic#top|talk]]) 01:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{ping|Colton Cosmic}} I thoroughly resent the accusations you are making. I an big enough, and certainly old enough, to make my own observations and decisions with going 'tattling'. Your personal attacks ''are'' breaking the rules and as such are not conducive to anyone wanting to entertain your situation. In talking like this you are certainly underlining one concern that I have: your immaturity and the fact that your persistent canvassing and back-door approach to getting unbanned will have the simple effect of digging you even deeper in without any of us admins at en.Wiki having to intervene other than tacitly ignoring your requests. |
|||
:::I'm also not in the slightest bit impressed with your name-dropping. I have not met Tretikov yet, but doubtless I will even if it waits until Mexico next year, but possibly the last and least thing that she would probably feel important enough to discuss would be individual users' unban campaigns. --[[User:Kudpung|Kudpung]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 04:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::: {{ping|Kudpung}} I didn't "personally attack" you. Someone shows up at my Meta talkpage warning me I'm likely to be "globally blocked" without offering a single rule I've supposed to have broken, and I'm not allowed to even wonder if he or she is preparing to report me? You just claimed I'm "immature" that's more of a personal attack than my words. Honestly, you ignore the poster just above that called you "assholish" and zero in on *me* for a truly innocuous statement? I'm not canvassing at all, I'm randomly asking for participation. I don't think you really understand WP:CANVAS. There's also nothing "back door" about me, it's in plain view as much as I know how to make it. If you ever decide you care enough to inform yourself the facts about whether I was rightly or wrongly blocked, instead of saying you're "not interested" as you did up above, I'm happy to answer your questions, but if it's just going to be this kind of stuff, I'd prefer you stay off my talkpage. [[User:Colton Cosmic|Colton Cosmic]] ([[User talk:Colton Cosmic#top|talk]]) 13:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC) PS: However, if your quarrel is mainly that I used the word "tattling" as opposed to "reporting" I will endeavor to use the latter in any reference to you in the future. |
|||
== BAN APPEAL: WORM WEIGHS IN == |
|||
Hi Colton. I've tried to follow your header format, feel free to play with it if you don't like it. I'm afraid to say that as a banned user, which you now are after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=618492436#Colton_Cosmic_-_block.2Funblock.2Fban_discussion.2Fclarification_thread this thread] a single admin does not have the authority to unblock you. |
|||
I won't comment on your ban appeal, but I hope you won't mind me making a couple of statements generally, as you've been chatting about me: |
|||
*I did not !vote in your unblock request, only asked a question (how long since your last evasion?) My main actions with regard to you is to comment at the [[en:WP:Request for comment/Colton Cosmic|RfC]] and to seriously consider your appeal off wiki. I do not believe I've taken any action with regards to you in 2014, though I'm happy to be corrected on that matter. |
|||
*I have suggested two separate routes back to Wikipedia |
|||
*#By passing me (or arbcom) the name of the old account so we can confirm what you're saying. I've specifically said that I would advocate for your return in this situation. |
|||
*#By following [[en:User:Worm That Turned/Quiet return|quiet return]], an unpopular opinion that I specifically put into words for your benefit. |
|||
I also have a number of questions for you, Colton Cosmic, but rather than ask them, I'll give you the chance to kick me off your talk page first :) [[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><font color="#000">'''''Worm'''''</font></span>]][[User:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><font color="#000"><sup>TT</sup></font></span>]] 10:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi Worm, it is true I have described your actions toward me negatively here so it would be wrong for me to disallow you the opportunity to respond, and so I don't. This position of basic fairness is quite unlike your stance towards me at my RFC/U where you joined those denying me the opportunity to respond ("I'm not sure that he needs to be unblocked to discuss whether he needs to be unblocked"). At that time, at an RFC/U that I and Gb_fan worked at quite hard, I had to sit and endure the fictional narrative you created that I jumped all over Nomo. out of the blue, supposedly betraying a relationship from a former account. Complete made-up bollocks, but darned if you didn't get massive "agrees." |
|||
:Let me respond to your three points: |
|||
::<b>1) Jimbo has my prior account, as you know, so a trusted figure has vouched it free of blocks, bans, sanctions, and obvious misbehavior.</b> It serves no purpose but to satisfy your curiosity if I hand it over to you as well. The vouching has already been done by a more prominent Wikipedia figure than you. Indeed it was clear in our emails when I appealed to Arbcom more than a year ago that your hitherto cooperative posture towards me swung sharply to negative when I declined to give you the account. Content yourself that Jimbo reviewed it. I've seen what Arbcom does with its poisonous telephone calls and emails to employers and families of editors like Poetlister and Kumioko. Is it reasonable to demand I subject myself to that? No. |
|||
::<b>2) Your "Quiet Return" essay tells an editor wrongly banned for socking that the answer is to: start socking.</b> Socks are by definition deceptive, and so I refute it totally because I behaved honestly. Quiet Return is not authorized by any policy and is in fact expressly against WP:CLEANSTART policy. On the sheerly practical side, you appraise me as someone with the technical ability to create an undetectable new account. I actually give more credit to Wikipedia's hyperactive "sockpuppet investigation" culture, and think someone probably would catch it. As well, my experiences the last couple years have called my attention to the need to improve policy and do things like WP:OPTOUT [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographical_optout&oldid=601181838] and there is no way I wouldn't be recognized there. |
|||
::<b>3) It is always a single administrator that unblocks, whether a short-term blockee or a banned user.</b> You're correct that he or she shouldn't just do so unilaterally out of the blue and that is why we're having this community discussion. WP:UNBAN doesn't say in the least that unbans are the sole belonging of the blockloving regulars at WP:AN/ANI. I advised [[User:Jusjih|Jusjih]] at the top section here though, that yes, realistically there should be a couple administrators lined up in support before an unblock is executed. |
|||
:So, with that covered, you're welcome to ask whatever new you like. [[User:Colton Cosmic|Colton Cosmic]] ([[User talk:Colton Cosmic#top|talk]]) 15:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::Hi Colton, apologies for the delay in replying, I don't think of meta much when I'm editing! |
|||
::*You state that Jimbo has your account and has "vouched it free of blocks, bans, sanctions, and obvious misbehavior". I remember that you did contact him, but I don't remember that he vouched for the account. Indeed, the last I heard was that you were to contact Arbcom with the account name. It appears to be an "I don't know" or a "no comment" from Jimmy - please do correct me if I'm wrong. |
|||
::*If you do not believe a quiet return is feasible due to your abilities, I will stop mentioning it. |
|||
::*Whilst it may only be a single administrator that removes the technical block, it is the consensus of a community group that removes the ban. I do not believe that you will get sufficient interest at this venue to remove the ban - and if a single administrator removes the block I expect it will be quickly returned. |
|||
::But anyway, to my questions. I've been contacted by a number of users linking you to a Wikipediocracy account. Do you believe that such a link should have any bearing on an un-ban request? If you accept that it should, could you comment on the link? If you don't, could you explain why? |
|||
::Do you believe that behaviour subsequent to a block or ban, in defiance of that block or ban, should be taken into account when looking at removing said block or ban? Why or why not? |
|||
::You appear to be disillusioned with Wikipedia, primarily interested in clearing this account's name. Is all this really worth it? What would it take for you to move on? |
|||
::Thanks for taking the time to look at my questions, I do appreciate it. [[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><font color="#000">'''''Worm'''''</font></span>]][[User:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><font color="#000"><sup>TT</sup></font></span>]] 14:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Hi, Worm. You're bulleting your questions, but then you're stating stuff that asks for response as well. Let me break them out and answer as clearly as I'm able. |
|||
<b>1)</b> You can see what Jimbo said at my Wikipedia English talkpage currently. Indeed he did vouch the account, which is my former account. He also said, basically, "I can't be sure this is his account," without explaining any particular reason to doubt me. If this is extended to a situation where I need to submit to forensic analysis and advanced linguistics matching, it is a battle I can't, and no-one else could, win. The account is my account. |
|||
<b>2)</b> I have said your essay "Quiet Return" is counter-policy, and can't apply to me anyway, and gave the reasons why above. My technical abilities are the least of it. |
|||
<b>3)</b> No, WP:UNBAN doesn't say I have to get "consensus" of the community discussion. It only requires that there *be* a community discussion sufficient for the administrator to act within his or her conscience. Further, the practice in closing community discussions has often been to devalue those opinions that are stated without reasoning. In my ban discussion you linked to, virtually every vote was made without expressing any reasoning. Another potential justification for the unblocker is to do an WP:IAR on the basis that I was wrongly blocked in the first place, which is increasingly apparent to all. |
|||
<b>4)</b> No, I believe any administrative examination of my Wikipedia activities should be limited to my Wikipedia activities, and resent totally any attempt to "investigate" me off-wiki. I will not respond to that, not "yes," not "no," not "maybe." Should more be needed, I hereby warn you and others off my off-wiki activities and life. |
|||
<b>5)</b> If a permanent block is wrong in the first place, it can't be retroactively justified by block evasion meant mainly to contest it afterwards. "Why or why not," you ask? The universal principle of self-defense for one reason. |
|||
<b>6)</b> Well, when you say I'm "disillusioned with Wikipedia" and "primarily interested in clearing Colton Cosmic's name," you're blurring them in a single sentence but these are two different questions. This kind of conflation is something I feel one should avoid. I'll leave the first alone, saying it really has no place in an unblock appeal, but answer negatively to the second: I am not primarily interested in clearing Colton Cosmic's name. That's silly. I edited Wikipedia five or six years prior being no-warn, no-discussion, no-link blocked in a, therefore, thoroughly abusive administrator act, based on a wrong assertion of socking. It's not about me clearing my name, it's that I still have contributions to make. [[User:Colton Cosmic|Colton Cosmic]] ([[User talk:Colton Cosmic#top|talk]]) 17:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Apologies for lack of clarity, I'll stick to your numbering as I think it covers everyting. |
|||
:#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colton_Cosmic&diff=prev&oldid=618171705] is the diff. Thank you, my memory had conflated a different statement that you had made. He does state that he has not made a comprehensive search of the account, which is what concerned me - but his statement was more conclusive than I remembered. |
|||
:#Quiet return is not counter policy. Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive - and users do regularly return quietly. Call it IAR if you wish. If you are unable to do so though, that's fair enough. |
|||
:#The options at WP:UNBAN are "appeal to the community" or "appeal to Arbcom". I'm just letting you know my opinion, that this venue will not be sufficient to count as "appeal to the community" |
|||
:#I assume you're defining off-wiki as "not on Wikimedia projects", due to the fact that you are currently appealing "off-English Wikipedia". But, I'll rephrase the question to make it more relevant - Have you ever documented and published private information (such as real names, ages and locations) of Wikipedians off-wiki? You've accused me - on-wiki - of lying about about my personal information, I do believe this is a relevant point. |
|||
:#Thank you for answering. What about block evasion which was ''not'' to contest the block? |
|||
:#Thanks, I think I've heard all I need to on this point. |
|||
:Again, thanks for engaging. [[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><font color="#000">'''''Worm'''''</font></span>]][[User:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><font color="#000"><sup>TT</sup></font></span>]] 08:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::Hi Worm, I am happy to answer reasoning question that will potentially inform people on my case. My problem in the past is people who are uninformed but opine against me anyway. |
|||
::*The key takeaway from Jimbo's comment is that the account was not blocked etc. That's the policy part that says I was entitled to do a WP:CLEANSTART. It refutes Silktork's old "you are Mr. X" accusation against me for example. There's no legitimate need for the "comprehensive search" you refer to. Nothing gives you the god-like right to microscopically examine the account, for example, to pick out some hitherto-unfaulted edit I made, say at 2:37 UTC on 12 Nov. 2007, and proclaim it indicative of an underlying problem showing I'm unsuited to edit and thus warranting my ban. |
|||
::*Your essay "Quiet Return..." well, I thought WP:CLEANSTART prohibited it, because WP:CLEANSTART rules out starting a new account while the old is blocked, however looking at it now, that text is self-contained for WP:CLEANSTART. In other words, it doesn't rule out Quiet Return generally, it says such wouldn't be a Cleanstart. I still think Quiet Return runs afoul of WP:SOCK, but I am not here to pick away at Quiet Return. |
|||
::*If nine or ten block-loving regulars at WP:AN/ANI are enough to constitute "community discussion" under WP:UNBAN, then a similar number of reasoning and communicative Wikipedians at this venue also qualify. |
|||
::*I've already said to you I won't answer off-wiki questions, and further that you should stop asking them. This is a slippery slope that ends with, for example, administrators TBloemink and JurgenNL prankcalling and stalking the residence of MoiraMoira, for another example, whichever arb it was poisonously emailing Kumioko's employer. |
|||
::*As for what I said about you, it was you first that told me after a long conversation, and without explaining any basis for your doubt, that "[my] story seems unlikely." You then made up an imaginary narrative in which I dropped in like some sky-diving villain on poor unsuspecting Nomoskedasticity without any prior interaction, portraying that completely fallacious account as authoritative by dint of your self-proclaimed supposed deep research. You have thus impugned my honesty worse than anything I said about you, and you also did it first. |
|||
::*Finally on the block evasion, yeah there was a minority of it that was other than directly to seek unblock. You have to realize that I edited Wikipedia for five or six years, so when I'm cut off completely there's still now and then my impulse to fix something or protect the privacy of a BLP subject, etc. I tried to do WP:OPTOUT [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographical_optout&oldid=601181838], which I view as a critical and urgent service for the thousands of subjects emotionally and otherwise hurt by their BLPs, but Silktork and Scott Martin squashed that one. I tried to eliminate the privacy-violating stuff at Phoenix Jones, where of course they were pointing to his personal Facebook, his Washington state-website-provided driving record, and calling him "nigger." There was one of my vitriolic detractors from the RFC/U that kept running around saying "[I] was spitting in the face of the community," and I got so frustrated with that, and me of course otherwise unable to argue it, I block-evaded to tell him save that demagoguery for his political career. Stuff like that. Those three are most of it really. I don't think any of that should work against me in an unblock request, but it's something for people to play around with if they think they need to. [[User:Colton Cosmic|Colton Cosmic]] ([[User talk:Colton Cosmic#top|talk]]) 15:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== BAN APPEAL: KONVEYOR BELT === |
|||
:::Just go, make a new acct. , and start editing. Don't go back to what you did before, and don't link your new acct. to your old one. Once you are established, you can move into more controversial areas and nobody will question you. This may take a little time and commitment, but it is a permanent solution. <span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #003399;">[[User:Konveyor Belt|'''<span style="color:#00008B;">Konveyor</span>''']]</span><span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #FF8C00;">[[User talk:Konveyor Belt|'''<span style="color:#B7410E;">Belt</span>''']]</span> 19:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::[[user:Konveyor_Belt|Konveyor_Belt]], my experiences have called to my attention that the most urgent places for me to contribute is in reformation of policies, such as the overgrown WP:DISRUPT, and of course WP:OPTOUT ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographical_optout&oldid=601181838]). I'd surely be recognized. I can't believe you'd want me to abandon what I find important and making a difference, and instead to start socking under a new account, editing things that don't mean as much to me, hiding out and always looking over my virtual shoulder. I hope you see your way clear to recognizing that I was wrongly blocked from the start, and supporting my immediate reinstatement as an editor. [[User:Colton Cosmic|Colton Cosmic]] ([[User talk:Colton Cosmic#top|talk]]) 21:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 17:25, 9 October 2014
Welcome to Meta!
Hello, Colton Cosmic. Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!
-- Meta-Wiki Welcome (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Blocked
I have blocked as it is clear your only purpose here is to canvass for an unban on the English Wikipedia, trying to bypass enwiki's canvassing rules on Meta. None of this matter has anything to do with Metawiki, and the usage of this wiki for this purpose is clearly improper. Snowolf How can I help? 17:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)