Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Colton Cosmic

Discussion of Outside view by Worm That Turned (as an administrator)

Worm, you cited CC's appraisal of User:Nomoskedasticity (an appraisal that conforms to the one I made within hours of first meeting Nomoskedasticity) as proof of CC's breach of WP:SOCK. On his talk page thread, User:Floquenbeam says, "Some of the later posts you made as Colton Cosmic appear to be re-opening old arguments and feuds, leading me to wonder if there's more you aren't telling anyone." and cites this as a good reason to distrust CC.

Now that it is clear the prior experience that informed CC's appraisal of Nomoskedasticity occurred under the CC account, would you please provide diffs to other evidence for the putative breach of WP:SOCK that justifies the initial block? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editing "policy pages" as alt account is prohibited (CC edited WP:SOCK talk pages only days before being blocked). Whether two months is enough "cleanstart" time to be considered a "cleanstart" is debatable but Canens erred on the side of privacy by declaring it an alt instead of an abusive sockpuppet. Being under scrutiny for being a sock within two months? Why not start another cleanstart account instead of block evading? Same difference. -- DHeyward (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an alt account. It's his only account. He's abandoned the first one. If you have evidence to the contrary, please bring it forward. I will definitely change my opinion on this issue if you can do that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoning an account doesn't mean it is their only account. He claims to have abandoned the previous account, but with all this socking, how can we be sure? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the rationale behind the initial block. Are you saying the initial block was grounded in behaviour that happened later? And are you saying that his transparent block evasion is proof that he's deceitful? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In May 2012, it would not be clear that the account was not created to avoid scrutiny. Two months into the account and already in conflict reeks of an account trying to avoid scrutiny. A "clean start" account that is created to avoid scrutiny is an WP:ILLEGIT alt and is judgement call. Account time frame and drama is enough to make an alt block. The original account is still there with it's clean block log which doesn't prohibit return at all. --DHeyward (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't smell what you imagine you smell. Plenty of people get into conflict here. It's called argument, and learning. It's what we do. A clean start account arguing with people is not enough to justify a block or a demand for disclosure of the prior account. If you add an obvious prior vendetta or serious problematical editing (not simple misunderstandings) in a controversial area, then I'm with you.

Timotheus and others thought they saw evidence of prior feuding with Nomo, but it is clear now that none of them was aware of the recent history between Nomo and CC. CC's belief that 3 reverts in 24 hours is safe is a common misunderstanding of even moderately experienced editors. He knows the meaning of "edit war" now. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This summary is mistaken. Colton Cosmic and Nomoskedasticity had a significant dispute over the article on Phoenix Jones, one of those real-world costumed crime fighters. Prior to that there was no interaction between them and CC was the first one to edit the article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out TDA. I've struck a relevant part. However, looking at the speed it escalated still does imply a return to past disputes or behaviours. Worm^TT(talk) 08:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WTT, eight days elapsed between Nomoskedasticity's first insulting comment to CC and CC snapping back at ANI. See some examples of Nomo's goading of CC during those eight days in the hatted section "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colton Cosmic#Background to the above", and read their interactions at Talk:Phoenix Jones for a full appreciation of the level of disdain with which Nomo treated CC for those eight days, and bear in mind Nomo brought CC to WP:AN/3RR and CC (wrongly) believed it was vexatious. Nomo turned up at that article after CC, the escalation was entirely due to Nomo's repeated insulting behaviour, if you read Talk:Phoenix Jones you'll see there is nothing suspicious at all about the speed of escalation.

How do you reconcile your claim that you looked deeply into this case before making up your mind with the fact that you hadn't even read the interactions between Nomoskedasticity and CC? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Last sentence added 06:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do invite other editors to look at the Phoenix Jones talk page, so that they can evaluate this claim that I repeatedly insulted CC. I don't usually mince my words, so I was expecting to see that I had in fact insulted CC, but having had a look myself I have to say that if CC felt insulted then he needs a thicker skin. Anyway, I can't even figure out why it matters here; it's as if it might justify CC's actions somehow… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay in this reply Anthonyhcole (also Nomoskedasticity). I've been away for a week. I had seen the discussions with Nomoskedasticity, and I read them as a return to past disputes. The dispute in question was nothing to do with the superheroes, but rather appeared to be about another editor, YouReallyCan. YouReallyCan has always been one of those editors who inspires strong opinions. So, a time line (remember, Colton's 50th edit was on 7th May) -

11:47, 5 May 2012 - N states CC's claim of BLP is "preposterous"[1].
17:12, 7 May 2012 - CC states people need to "open their minds" and that they are POV editing. [2]
17:56, 7 May 2012 - N states the subjects are "idiots in super hero costumes"[3]
18:08, 7 May 2012 - CC states N is "pushing things" [4]
18:50, 7 May 2012 - N's comment "What exactly was I wrong about, darling?" [5]
19:25, 7 May 2012 - CC points out that N has shown his true colours [6]
01:30, 8 May 2012 - CC goes to N's talk page, accusing him of wikistalking Youreallycan for 2 years (edit summary) [7]

Now, that seems out of the blue to me and a lot faster than 8 days. CC then started agitating at the Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry, then ANI, leading to the most problematic comment, 5 days later. NB, Dreamfocus had a similar argument with CC at the same time - including stating that CC's argument "didn't make sense", but did not get nearly the same treatment. He targeted N, hence my belief he was returning to past disputes. Worm^TT(talk) 10:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of View by Lukeno94

Luke, I can't agree with you there. Are you relying on the now-discredited claim that CC formed his opinion of Nomo under an earlier account when you say, "However, it appears that they got themselves embroiled in a dispute with an old foe"?

CC's argument for removing the real identity on that BLP was valid, and worthy of consideration, in my opinion. (I'm not quite persuaded, but I think it's a view worthy of putting.)

I found CC's statement in their first edit to be perfectly fine. I'm not sure what aspect of it you're characterizing as "soap-boxing." Is there any chance of you rethinking your view? Or am I missing some vital evidence supporting his block? (I'm not addressing his subsequent use of IPs to comment here, as I'm very likely to forgive that if it turns out there is no good evidence for the initial block.) CC may deserve blocking for some other infraction - I don't know - but I'd like to see the evidence before endorsing this block. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement that that claim was discredited is incorrect. Whilst there is no concrete evidence that their previous account was in a dispute with Nomoskedasticity, it is still very likely, given their actions and mannerisms. Nor am I remotely relying on that claim, and it requires a massive manipulation of my comment to even come close to that assumption. CC's argument for the removal of the information from the BLP is nowhere near valid, since the subject themselves had long since self-identified - see this, for example. That's 4 months, at least, before CC appeared in that area.
As to CC's first talk page edit, either they shouldn't have said anything, or just have said "I am an existing editor, undergoing the clean start process". Instead, they've gone on to make some comments on the previous case, which is against the whole point of a clean start account.
In summary; no, I am not going to change my view, because most of what you've said is inaccurate at best, and you've also misrepresented one part of my comment in a pretty major way. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm content to agree to disagree on the validity of CC's BLP argument. But I'm open to persuasion on your assertion that CC's previous account was in a dispute with Nomoskedasticity. Can you please point to the behaviours and mannerisms that lead you to that conviction?

I apologise for having misrepresented you. I assumed you, like others, had simply overlooked the article talk page thread that contains more than enough obnoxiousness on Nomo's part for a reasonable person to form the opinion he is a knob. I look forward to reading your behavioural and mannerism evidence that is concrete enough to justify a block under WP:SOCK.

I still see nothing whatever wrong with CC's first user page post, I'm afraid. But as it has no bearing on whether CC has history with Nomo or is rehashing old feuds, I'd prefer to leave that point to one side and, again, agree to disagree. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, cheers for that, Anthony. So this is all about rehashing the Muhammad images dispute, then? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a clean start account is supposed to try and stay out of any of the existing disputes. The initial talk page edit strays too close to the line in my mind, even if it isn't a clear-cut overstep.
I'm concerned that you're still not seeing the flaws with the BLP argument, as that is one of CC's bigger problems (and indeed what led to the majority of the drama in the first place), so let's elaborate. The first talk page discussion that was opened by CC. Here, CC is clearly using a part of BLP that doesn't back up what he was doing; he cites the bit about dealing with alleged crime (fine), but uses that as a justification for the removal of a "secret identity" - one that the subject had clearly identified with in a fairly major news story, and in a clear-cut quote as well (there is literally no way of reading it otherwise). Also, claiming that the person is "relatively unknown" seems to be inaccurate. CC then repeats the same statement, despite the fact that it still doesn't back up their position - at this point, User:Dream Focus and User:Anaxial had both pointed out the flaws in CC's argument by this point. At this point, CC finally comes out with the section of the BLP policy that could defend their edit - but again, it isn't valid since the subject has self-identified very publicly. Then CC goes to BLP/N, with a suggestion to create a content fork if someone thinks the person's real name is notable - now that is definitely not compliant with any policy. This borders on the nonsensical - accusing others of making circular arguments whilst doing exactly the same themselves. This still ignores the fact that, after the court case, the person in question had self-identified. I could continue to point out the flaws in their arguments with a load more diffs, but that's enough
So, let's return to the Nomaskedasticity vs CC point. Their first interaction was reasonable enough. However, when Nomaskedasticity begins to point out the flaws in CC's argument, things go downhill (yes, it wasn't the nicest way of putting it, but it was understandable after multiple editors had already done so). After CC trots out the same argument at AN3, following Nomaskedasticity's report, things get worse, and this was also inappropriate. Whilst Nomaskedasticity could've been more tactful, I wouldn't consider anything they said there to be worth the escalation CC took. As far as I am aware, Nomaskedasticity did not start [trolling, like this comment, either. As I said, there's no concrete proof that the users had negatively interacted beforehand, but given the way in which CC was interacting (let's not forget, the clean start was for claimed privacy reasons; you'd expect them to be being very careful about getting into disputes, for fear of getting in further trouble. And this is still less than 3 months after the clean start account was started.
I know that's verging on TL;DR territory (well, it probably is TL;DR), but it needed to be said. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never have a problem with TLDR. Usually, my complaint is about not enough discussion rather than too much.

I see what you mean about CC's BLP arguments - which is why I'm not convinced by them - but they are reasonable and CC sincerely believed they were sound. In all well-conducted debates with a clear outcome it turns out that at least some positions are mistaken. CC had every right to put his arguments and persist with them as far as he did. It was not disruptive. It's what we do here. Even so, I don't see how his presenting an argument that others believe is flawed supports the premise that CC is reigniting old feuds.

I don't see how CC's first user page edit goes anywhere near reigniting old disputes. It's the kind of notice I would post if I took a clean start so that others who saw this "brand new" user editing like a pro would understand what's going on. I saw it as courteous and informative.

My understanding of this block is that it was placed on the presumption that CC was rehashing a dispute from his previous incarnation. If that's a misunderstanding, would you (or anyone else) please set me right? If I've got that right, you still haven't shown me anything that remotely supports that presumption. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CC was on the drama boardz within two months of his first edit on mulyiple occasion. Make enough noise that drmies and others wondered aloud who the new account was. Such speculation did not drive the privacy conscious CC away though. He continued and made edits to the boards and to policy and policy/talk space like WP:SOCK. So when Canens makes the connection he has 3 choices: 1) cleanstart account (we don't have editing overlap data as CC has failed to provide his account), 2) it's an alt account which leaves editing privileges intact on the main account or 3) an abusive sockpuppet. Option 2 preserved editing privileges and privacy while also providing for the concerns of a WP:ILLEGIT account. Once the determination that it was an alt vs. cleanstart, policy page edits are not allowed. --DHeyward (talk) 09:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there were any grounds at all to believe he was running two accounts alternately and hadn't abandoned the first as he declared (and there are none), or that he was avoiding a block or sanctions (and that's now been ruled out[8]) then I'd agree. But there never has been a shred of evidence that this fellow is anything but what he says he is. He was stupidly, recklessly blocked for nothing but speaking his mind to admins. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not block evasion?? To see the extent of it: [9]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. That's block evasion by someone who was unfairly blocked. What about it? Do you think, now that you've seen all the evidence in one place, that the original block was fair? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's completely irrelevant to the question of whether he committed block evasion. We have avenues for people to appeal blocks, and CC has steadfastly refused to use any of them.—Kww(talk) 19:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Running multiple accounts is only one reason. Creating a "clean start" account, even if abandoning the original, is not valid if the reason is to avoid scrutiny. Then it becomes WP:ILLEGIT alt and is subject to those restrictions. Two months too much drama. He was blocked for that. The original account would still exist with it's clean block record for future clean starts. --DHeyward (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, um, where's your evidence that he clean-started in order to avoid scrutiny (other than the scrutiny avoidance inherent in a legitimate clean start)? The "too much drama" theory is no proof of anything. If you compare his behaviour in those first two months with mine, Luke's or Kww's in those same two months you'll see far more "drama" (policy and behaviour discussion) and we're not hiding any dark history. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I'd rather prefer it if you didn't make such wildly inaccurate statements. In my first two months, I only ever edited articles, with the exception of one talk page comment (where I raised a potential factual issue). I didn't even edit my own talkpage until over 2 months after I joined; I didn't edit any Wikipedia space page for another month after that. My first ANI post was in November 2012, and I joined in January 2011. I'd like to see where you get the basis of your comment from, because it seems horrendously inaccurate. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luke, what comment are you referring to? --DHeyward (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony's "If you compare his behaviour in those first two months with mine, Luke's or Kww's in those same two months you'll see far more "drama" (policy and behaviour discussion) and we're not hiding any dark history." I fucked up the formatting (too many indentations). Given how inaccurate Anthony's statement is about myself, it probably should be stricken, or backed out of. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think there’s a simple misunderstanding here: if I read it correctly, Anthonyhcole‘s “same two months” refers to the period of time, as on the calendar, but Lukeno94 is taking it to refer to corresponding periods in each of the mentioned editors’ WP careers. I haven’t looked at the noticeboard histories myself, but the accuracy of A’s remark hinges on his, L’s, & Kww’s activity there concurrent with CC’s, not during their respective first two months of editing. I think context supports this interpretation as well, since we’re not talking about a user’s first account, but perhaps Anthonyhcole can confirm that this is what he meant.—Odysseus 1479 20:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. That's what I meant. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that doesn't make it any more accurate. As I said above, my first ANI post was in November 2012. That's six months after CC was blocked. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I thought you'd been here much longer. Let's compare your contributions to project space over the last two months then - nearly 500 edits to Wikipedia: space and well over 500 to Wikipedia talk: space. That's my point. If you took a genuine clean start and continued with your usual pattern of constructive contribution here, based on your present argument, you should be blocked - even if, as in CC's case, none of your contributions was problematical. (This was a very sophisticated series of edits for your fifth ever contribution to Wikiprdia, by the way. Impressive.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Me knowing how to copy-paste from other articles and change the numbers as appropriate isn't that impressive. And I think we all know that some of CC's contributions were problematic; they have a very odd (at best) view of BLP that goes against what most people would say, they refused to listen to any issues raised about that view-point, and they were edit-warring away merrily as well. It is frankly bizarre that you can make the claim that none of their contributions were problematic; because almost all of them were. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Returning (in any form of account) to high drama areas with as a new, non-disclosed identity is an "alt" not a "clean start." A new user with no previous account of any kind can start where they need to (usually on a 3RR board). But a "clean start" user cannot. That's the fundamental difference between a "clean start", "new user" and "alt." A "clean start" declaration is insufficient to wipe away previous behavior until such time as there is distance between those behaviors. Two months is judgement call but seems pretty good judgement considering the IP socks and editing since. --DHeyward (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "A new user with no previous account of any kind can start where they need to (usually on a 3RR board). But a "clean start" user cannot." Well, a clean-starter can start wherever they want, though it's recommended they avoid previous articles and topics and contentious and scrutinised topics. There's no evidence he edited in either of those. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colton Cosmic is now running around various talkpages, hopping IPs and issuing personal attacks. As usual, they've shown their inability to actually read what people have said; in their haste to curse me, they've not realized that I never said anything about them editing the drama boards in their first two months, only that I didn't do so. Given their sheer incompetence, the level of socking and the persistent abuse, why do you still think it is appropriate for this user to return, Anthony? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Outside View by Anthonyhcole

Your view is a rather narrow take on WP:ILLEGIT. There are many reasons to treat the Colton Cosmic account as an alt rather than "clean start." Two months in and on the drama boards attacking editors [10]. Mastcell highlighted the issue on his talk page[11][12]. In the ANI thread, that doesn't appear to have anything to do with him, he is just there to be contentious. It is there where it's speculated he's an alt. Even just a behavior conclusion of alt is justified. His main account is still supposedly free of sanction, and he's been offered the standard WP:OFFER. This only requires the use of a new moniker other than Colton Cosmic. Why this is the case is unknown. He's spent more time trying to resurrect an account name that only has drama and conflict associated with it. Even if the block is lifted, Colton Cosmic should not be the account name. This isn't acceptable to him, though, and is why it's just a vanity appeal. --DHeyward (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He says he's motivated by a sense of justice doesn't he? But maybe that's just my assumption. I think this kind of case is worthwhile (assuming the block was unwarranted) to keep scrutiny on admin actions generally. But he's gone about it in the least efficient way. You mention here that Timotheus knows CC's earlier account name. Are you sure about that? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I believe now that I was mistaken. This was apparently not a CU based identification and is really just behavioral. The distinction is not really pertinent as it's the behavior that draws attention and interpretation. When I look at it from overall perspective, it's pretty clear that Colton Cosmic was a reincarnated account. From a behavioral view, he seems rather familiar with admins and editors on ANI. He quickly bans Baseball Buggs from his talk page. His comments on ANI and comments as an IP sock on Jimbo's talk page [13] are also overly familiar in terms of interaction. From that as well as his ability to pick out edits from admins that have nothing to do with him (i.e. pulling the BWilkins bullying stuff from Jimbo's talk page) are all behaviors of someone with a history at ANI and admins and Jimbo. Cleanstart accounts with a history at ANI shouldn't hang out there and the impression is that Colton Cosmic had been around that there. Even if he has a first account w/o sanction, editors/admins deserve to know who an editor is especially on contentious issues (like YRC's block). As for his motivation for justice, I don't see it. He has the ability to IP sock (and therefore the ability to return quietly. His sense of justice seems to want to edit Seattle superhero articles as the name Colton Cosmic. It actually sounds more juvenile (or OCD) than justice. --DHeyward (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just commenting that there’s a fair bit of this view I share, but I guess I teeter the other way on point 3. Spamming appeals while evading a (possibly unjustified) block is one thing, but editing policy pages is too much.—Odysseus 1479 05:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Users who object to this summary:

Tendentious and misleading, and violates WP:NPA . Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some changes [14] and would welcome suggestions for improvement from others. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing a statement in an RFC/U, like changing a post on a talk page, is discouraged because it is hard to be sure whether comments were addressed to the most recent version or the original. In this case it appears that Anthonyhcole's are meant to address Nomoskedasticity by toning down the personal attacks. However, the changes should still have been made by striking and inserting, rather than by editing in place. I realize that there is old anger behind this block. Can the participants try to contribute to a reasoned discussion of whether to unblock, as opposed to merely hashing out old dislikes. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While your general point is correct, in this instance there's no need to worry about the confusion you describe, because no-one else has endorsed Anthony's view. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Nomo. I also think it's best, even if others have responded to a comment, to completely remove unflattering commentary rather than just strike it, whenever that can be done without altering the meaning of the statement or subsequent responses, out of respect for the insulted person. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should we advertise this RfC/U more widely?

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colton himself has now improperly canvassed TWICE on his usetalkpage, using the WP:ECHO function to call 4 editors at a time to this RFC. His talkpage access should be removed for the duration of this RFC D P 14:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed. What would be the best way to invite broader neutral input to an RfC/U? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is a user conduct Request for Comments really the way to obtain community input on a questioned ban or block? I would suggest that a motion to the ArbCom would be a better way to obtain neutral and non-neutral input in turn to obtain a neutral decision, but that is only my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colton's appeal to arbcom was declined. So he's appealing to the wider community. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the ArbCom declined his appeal, and since Jimbo declined or ignored his appeal, and since he chooses not to use a quiet return, there isn't any non-disruptive method left to obtain input. (sarcasm on) Therefore the question is what is the most disruptive method left for him to obtain input. (sarcasm off) Anthonyhcole, you appear to be trying to act as the reasonable lawyer for an unreasonable client. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see why it's important enough to merit extra efforts to gain input, beyond the attention it's receiving already via the usual RfC mechanism. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what mechanisms? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFC/A. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/UsersList gets transcluded via {{RFCUlist}} to the header of WP:ANI and to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, so far, apart from Colton's echoing, the only advertising has been via WP:RFC/A and a header at ANI? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, apart from the >150 people who are just now seeing it on your user page? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Apart from them. :o) Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Categorized list of suspected IP socks after the block

Here is the list of suspected IP socks: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Colton Cosmic. I am not familiar with the capabilities of checkuser and these are not CU reported IP's. Rather, I'd note that an account created from any similar IP would not be traceable if hadnot been previously identified. Whence the argument he possesses the skill to "return quietly" with only behavior to link him to Colton Cosmic. --DHeyward (talk) 07:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked

Just a note that I have removed Colton Cosmic's ability to edit his talk page following yet another effort to canvass this RFCU using the ping mechanism.—Kww(talk) 13:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/U participation from CC

I probably extended some good faith a bit too much but it is what it is. CC evaded his block to post on his talk page that he should be allowed to participate in a RFC/U that is about him (although technically this is not about him, I suppose). I, perhaps foolishly, offered to raise a 3rd party request on WP:AN to determine a consensus whether he should be unblocked to allow his participation. However, rather than post to such a high traffic page straight away and generate a drama storm since I'm sure CC will block evade to jump in on it, I wish to gauge the opinions of those who have posted here on such a proposal. Please bear in mind that I am not advocating for an unblock, which I have made clear to CC, but as I have said that I could bring this for a discussion it is against my principles to renege on such a declaration. Blackmane (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given just how abusive and disruptive CC has been during this RfC, I would categorically oppose any lifting of restrictions on this user. They simply cannot be trusted, and they've already said everything that they need to say anyway (on multiple occasions, spamming it everywhere). Nothing good would be gained by this user being unblocked to participate in this RfC. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Ugh. If there were any real prospect of the community agreeing to unblock him, I'd say it's okay to go down this route. But I think the prospects are nil, and I'd suggest we drive a thick wooden spike through this one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion on it to be honest. This isn't a traditional RfC/U, which is meant as an intervention, discussing the behaviours of a user in the hope to get them to change, rather than have sanctions. Instead, this is really a request for comment on the whether Colton Cosmic should remain blocked. I'm not sure that he needs to be unblocked to discuss whether he needs to be unblocked. Worm^TT(talk) 14:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Based on previous action, I have no confidence that CC would abide by any terms of unblocking. Tiderolls 16:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have a process for him to participate that works. I even wrote {{User proxy}} today to help in those copy/paste situations D P 18:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He can't use that right now, because he can't edit his talk page (see above section).—Kww(talk) 18:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From Colton

This was posted on my talk page:

Despite what Dheyward and Lukeno94 are wrongly saying, I made no edit at any discussion board until two months and twenty days after starting this account. It is therefore safe to say that no matter how many "drama board" edits Lukeno94 made at any two month segment as an editor, it could not be less than mine. Lukeon94 is now saying that he made no representation at all regarding my "drama board" edits but I distinctly recall him howling for a formal retraction of your comment that he could've possibly had more than mine. At my first discussion board edit, two months and twenty days in, I made a purely reasonable, constructive, and non-antagonistic-to-anyone comment [15] at the BLP noticeboard. It was here though, unfortunately to me, that Nomo. started tracking my edits and followed me back to Phoenix Jones where he or she had never edited or shown interest before.
I then politely and non-dramatically participated in the BLP discussion I started, and made a single other innocuous and non-dramatic opinion comment [16] about whether a person's race belongs in a BLP lede. My first appearance at WP:AN/ANI (by the way this means ever, not just as Colton Cosmic) was against my will when Nomo. reported me there [17]. What else? Worm has now shifted the ever-moving purported basis of his adversity to some carefully-selected yet tangled particular date-time sequence [18] to include his assertion that I "accused Nomo. of wikistalking Youreallycan." Yet again, this is: NOT SO! Youreallycan himself made the wikihounding assertion in quite plaintive terms, and with diffs and evidence. I merely said "IF you've wikistalked dude for two years then lay off" [caps added]. I did however find Youreallycan's complaint persuasive that Nomo. had tracked, taunted, and targeted him for two years. I will give diffs for Youreallycan's words if needed, no time now. Anyhow, thanks for reading. You don't owe me a thing, but I'm grateful for your words on my behalf. This is Colt on Co5mic. 15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROXYING? Perhaps not, if it only applies to "banned" users. But I see no reason to countenance CC's participation here, given his block -- and if banning is the only way to accomplish that then it can probably be arranged. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]