Jump to content

User talk:Colton Cosmic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Colton Cosmic (talk | contribs) at 12:38, 11 February 2014 (→‎Cooperation on RFC/U draft: thank you). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

RFC draft for GB_fan review, modification, submission

GB, oh this is atrocious to format, but you should be able to copy/paste the text between the "pre" markers to the RFC/U submission page. The way the RFC appears to work is you are putting your signature on it, so check everything I said for neutral tone (except the subsection designated for my personal response) and modify it as you see fit. Do not submit anything that is not a basically factual summation as you perceive it. I provided the supporting hyperlinks.

I tried to do it but you will probably have to fix the linebreaks and maybe the hyperlinks. You can do that and evaluate and modify the content at the same time.

Like it says in there, I am not asking you to copy-paste me for the whole RFC/U process, just point them here, and I'll answer whatever.

This is obviously a pain in the butt, so whatever our past differences I am grateful to you for undertaking it. Colton Cosmic (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I improved the draft. Colton Cosmic (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colton, I ended up having more time than I thought I would when I last posted here. I have modified the RFC/U, would you look over what I have done and let me know if anything I have put in is inaccurate. You can find my version at User:GB fan/Sandbox. GB fan 02:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
==Statement of the dispute==

Colton Cosmic and Timotheus Canens disagree on whether Colton's editing constituted a form of sockpuppetry ([[WP:ILLEGIT]]) for which Colton was permanently blocked by Timotheus Canens on 15 May, 2012.

=== Desired outcome  ===

An expression by RFC/U participants as to the accuracy of the socking charge. This will inform the decision of any administrator considering unblocking him.

=== Description ===

Timotheus blocked without warning, evidence in the form of diffs, or explanation at Colton's talkpage. The blocklog [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=Colton_Cosmic&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_review_log=1&hide_thanks_log=1] displays the following pre-set text attirbuted to Timotheus: "Abusing multiple accounts: WP:ILLEGIT; undisclosed alternate accounts may not edit project space." Colton stated and continues to state his innocence of the charge. In his first edit ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colton_Cosmic&oldid=477070007]) 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: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colton_Cosmic&diff=prev&oldid=492606080]. Colton's initial block appeal was denied by Tide_rolls [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AColton_Cosmic&action=historysubmit&diff=493436420&oldid=493351700]. Colton's subsequent appeal to Arbcom was declined by Silktork ("User has appealed the block. This has been declined")([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=Colton_Cosmic&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_review_log=1&hide_thanks_log=1]). The question of "Unblocking_Colton_Cosmic" was later raised at WP:AN/ANI ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=550186527#Unblocking_Colton_Cosmic]), but he was not unblocked.  

=== Evidence of disputed behavior ===

Timotheus Canens asserted, on 11 April, 2013, ten months after the block, that this diff [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=492434366#Andrew_Nikoli.C4.87] partially justified the block.

Timotheus Canens referred, on 11 April, 2013, apparently sarcastically, to other "delightful contributions" that warrant a blocking for sockpuppetry, not specifying them: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=549874169].

Colton Cosmic offers the following to argue he is a constructive editor: 

Article on [[RainCity 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 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APhoenix_Jones&action=historysubmit&diff=491802389&oldid=491801035]). 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 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APhoenix_Jones&action=historysubmit&diff=491495226&oldid=491464348]). "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 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Colton_Cosmic&offset=&limit=500&target=Colton+Cosmic]) 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 Silktork "User has appealed the block. This has been declined"([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=Colton_Cosmic&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_review_log=1&hide_thanks_log=1]). WP:AN/ANI declined to unblock him ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=550186527#Unblocking_Colton_Cosmic]) 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. 

==== Attempts by certifier C1 ====
<!-- Please replace "C1" with the username of the first certifier.-->
:#
:#

==== Attempts by certifier C2 ====
<!-- Please replace "C2" with the username of the second certifier.-->
:#
:#

==== Other attempts ====
:#
:#


=== Users certifying the basis for this dispute ===
''{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}''
<!-- Please note: If you did not try and fail to resolve the dispute, but agree with the summary's presentation of events, please sign in the next section. Remember to notify the subject, via his/her talk page, that a conduct dispute has been raised.-->
:# 
:#

=== Other users who endorse this summary ===
<!-- If you agree with the summary's presentation of events but did not try and fail to resolve the dispute, please sign in this section. -->
''{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.}''

# <!-- Replace this with your signature -->
#

==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 (I can't locate the diff for this, it's in one of the non-indexed 30 archives at his talkpage, in response to a query by Tarc). 

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 [[Wikipedia talk:{{PAGENAME}}|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 ExampleUsername===

{Add your summary here.  You must use the endorsement section below to sign it.  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.}

Users who endorse this summary:
#

===Outside view by ExampleUsername===

{Add your summary here.  You must use the endorsement section below to sign it.  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.}

Users who endorse this summary:
#

==Reminder to use the talk page for discussion==
''All'' signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to [[Wikipedia talk:{{PAGENAME}}|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.<!--


Do not comment below. Please read the instructions above.

-->

RFC/U submission try again

@EdChem: You said you'd help me out with the RFC/U. Would you go ahead and give it a shot? I thought go ahead with @GB fan: who had also volunteered, and seemed like he might be more familiar with them. However GB_fan has been off-wiki for three days and counting now. This after editing every single day for at least the last 45 days (I looked, got tired of scrolling back). I felt aggravated for a bit, but realized that was self-centered because GB might be having a personal emergency or something. I hope GB is okay. Nevertheless I'd like to go ahead with the RFC/U if you are willing. The draft is right above. I'd suggest editing the section and copy-pasting from between the "pre" markers. Colton Cosmic (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Colton, I have to apologize. I had every intention of helping out with this but some stuff came up and I will not have the time to look over what you have written and submit it. Hopefully someone else will be able to help. Again I apologize. GB fan 20:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My unblocking is important to me, and your 96 hour delay after you agreed to help aggravated me, but that is not offensive enough to amount to anything requiring an apology. Nevertheless, I accept without condition to clear any wandering uncertainties about it. When you get a chance, consider unblocking me if you ever come to the opinion that I didn't do what I'm blocked for. Colton Cosmic (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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

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

Request reason:

For due diligence, you will have to check my block log yourself but I was blocked on the charge of sockpuppetry. I didn't do it, so I think I should be unblocked. If you are thinking "oh, but whoever blocked him must have some evidence" the answer is no. You can see that here: [1]. You can see in my very first edit as Colton Cosmic that I had a single previous account that I abandoned for privacy reasons. That does not mean I am in violation of WP:SOCK. I say that I am a constructive editor, for example I authored Rain City Superhero Movement. Colton Cosmic (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"I didn't do it, so I think I should be unblocked." Wow. If that were a valid reason to unblock someone accused of socking, we might as well not have a sockpuppetry policy then. As far as your record: blocked indef, unblocked, blocked again and then reblocked after a brief unblock last spring ... that says it all. I am not going to be the admin who unblocks you the third time. — Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Daniel Case: I don't understand your reasoning, so would you mind sticking around a bit longer to discuss your decision with me. If you won't unblock an editor for not doing what he or she is blocked for, when would you ever unblock an editor? You seem to be giving weight only to the accusation. Is there no need for evidence in your view? My block record doesn't "say it all" about me. Nihonjoe researched my case carefully and unblocked. I didn't do a darn thing except say "thank you" before being reblocked ten hours later or whatever it was. You shouldn't infer fresh offenses because of the ping pong in my block record. Won't you even acknowledge my constructive editing such as the article I pointed you to? Colton Cosmic (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC) PS: Here was Nihonjoe's reasoning [2]. The unblock was overturned not on anything I did but on ANI's perception that he should've talked it up prior to acting.[reply]

I can only review the unblock you posted, not the one you wish you had. Blocked editors often say they didn't do it, especially where sockpuppetry is alleged. To reiterate, saying "I didn't do it", while it doesn't prove you socked, scarcely suffices to disprove it, either.

I confess that since I do not hang out at AN/I regularly, I didn't follow the action from last spring when it happened. But it was obvious that it was far from unanimous that unblocking you was what the community wanted—and the fact that you were blocked again so quickly (granted, not for any fresh offense) tends to reinforce that.

As for productive editing, well, a lot of these people in their time contributed productively as well. That didn't negate the community's eventual loss of patience with them (something I infer has happened, or almost happened, in your case). Daniel Case (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: Daniel, let me know if my use of the "reply" tag is unwelcome, I am still adjusting to when I should use that. To answer, you can revisit my unblock request anytime you want, it's not a question of "his unblock request wasn't good enough, so c'est la vie." It should be on the blocker to give evidence, shouldn't it? I can't very well disprove it, can I? Disprove you're a murderer, then. If my blocker gave evidence then I could potentially refute it, but he didn't give any evidence. As to WP:AN/ANI please don't shorthand them as "the community." They are, at least in large part, a self-selecting group of drama regulars and blockaholics, and that environment is easily and often gamed by the worst of them. "The community" in my book is *all* the Wikipedia contributors. If you want to call WP:AN/ANI "community discussion," then okay. Please have another look at my case with an eye to the specifics. If you want a longer form unblock request text from me look here [3] under "response." You point me to a great big list of banned users, and say "some of them were productive too." There are too many there to read up on, but I'd suppose that most of them had affirmative and public processes banning them. I have had no such process. A WP:AN/ANI thread titled "unblock Colton Cosmic" is not an affirmative banning process. Neither was that even resolved by consensus if you looked at it, it was like 6 in my favor and 19 against. If they want to do a vote (and voting is what it was) called "Ban Colton Cosmic" then they can have at it and possibly put me on that list and that would be an affirmative banning process, but I am not recommending this. The reason I point you to my constructive achievements is to rebut Timotheus' charge that I am a trouble maker. What else? If you gravitate to the idea that I personally attacked Nomoskedasticity, I tell you that I recognize I was uncivil and wrong to say what I said, however I viewed myself rightly or wrongly as confronting a cyberbully that had tracked, taunted, and targeted Youreallycan for two years. I pledged to be more civil. If there is something else you're looking for in an unblock request Daniel, let me know what it is. Colton Cosmic (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Colton Cosmic, do you think that your implications about me, which you skilfully wove into your messages bombarded all over every admin's page on this entire wiki, were the sort of thing that someone who was looking forward to contributing productively on the English Wikipedia, should have posted? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To get this one first, and then go back to Daniel. Demiurge1000, I am neither skillful enough nor devious enough to be going around weaving implications about you on every administrator's page on this entire wiki. That assertion strikes me as genuinely bizarre. As I recall things my first interaction with you was initiated by you at Jimbo's talkpage, and went politely until you began reverting and deleting me there. After that you showed up at LadyofShalotte's page to argue against her unblocking me. And a few days ago you started hanging out here to criticize me, you said I "very slightly misrepresented" so and so and I rebutted it firmly. That's it to our interactions as far as I know. Those three things. If you want to quarrel with a particular aspect of how I responded to you at Jimbo's page, then point it out and we'll discuss it. If not then just drop it. Without meaning to sound unfriendly or uncivil I don't want anything to do with you, much less go around weaving implications about you. However I am willing to discuss things if that is what you want to do. Colton Cosmic (talk) 13:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cooperation on RFC/U draft

@GB fan: I'm starting a new section, because I almost missed your reply to me way up above. Well, you did devote some time to that RFC/U draft. Let me opine on its broad structure first and then get down into the details. You've taken what I sought to limit to a narrow finding on the original charge of socking, and expanded it to a broader referendum on me. Well, honestly it was going to go there anywhere. Although it may not be wise of me, I suggest strengthening your "Desired outcome" text from "An expression by RFC/U participants as to the accuracy of the socking charge and should Colton Cosmic remain blocked" to "A) An expression by RFC/U participants as to the accuracy of the original socking charge, and B) whether to ban Colton Cosmic."

That clears it up conceptually, and leaves no doubt as to what the participants are deciding my status should be. It also points out I'm seeking determination on whether I socked *prior to Timotheus' move in May 2012* not that awful debate whether clearly-disclosed *block evasion* is a "technical violation" of WP:SOCK. (My position on that infernal question if you don't know is that WP:EVADE is the policy on evasion, not WP:SOCK, so let's just call things what they are.)

Since you expanded it to delve into my block evasion, GB, can you add this to my "Response" section: "I openly acknowledge my clearly-disclosed block evasion (i.e. signed username to raw IP edits). I block-evaded mainly to appeal my block, because even my talkpage was blocked to me, and I felt (and feel) that I had been left with no other genuine avenue of appeal. It is accurate that a minority of my block evasion was for various other purposes, as listed above, such as to request unblocks of two other blockees I found completely unjustly blocked, and to jointly craft a BLP policy I found incredibly important. Someone will probably point out that I was rude in one instance of block evasion or another, and I'll accept that, but try to put yourself in the shoes of someone that gets reflexively reverted for example. It's a frustrating experience."

Further subsection: "To respond to those who point to WP:OFFER, I say firstly that's an essay not policy, secondly that there are those administrators ([4] for example) that have stated they'll resist any application of it in my case, thirdly I have a lot of good contributions to make in the next six months and have already been blocked long enough, but last and most importantly WP:OFFER is a repentance model that doesn't fit me because I am blocked for something I did not do. How shall I say "I realized now that I am in fact a sock and was properly blocked, I've reflected for six months on my bad behavior and promise to never do it again?" It would be a lie." Colton Cosmic (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC) PS: This is getting long so I'm pressing submit, but I'll have some short other comments and give you a couple links shortly.[reply]

  • GB, please remove the "citation needed" tag under "Evidence of disputed behavior." The diff supporting that is at the end of the next sentence. I think it's clear enough.
  • GB, consider rephrasing your text at the conclusion of "Description." You said "Another option that Colton has rejected is to reveal the prior account to either ARBCOM or to an Admin of his choice," however Jimbo has the account and is an administrator. Colton Cosmic (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • GB, it is important I think to encapsulate under "Statement of the dispute" that the RFC/U was expanded to examine my editing post the block, not just the propriety of Timotheus's action based on my edits prior to to the block. You might be able to do this with "This RFC/U further calls for examination of Colton's block-evading edits subsequent to his block." Colton Cosmic (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • GB, okay, my bulleted requests must be getting tiresome, so finally: A) you removed "apparently sarcastically" under "Evidence of disputed behavior," please insert "in his words" instead for clarity to the reader, and B) consider going by my words "permanently blocked" under "Statement of the dispute" instead of the Wikipedia administrative convention "indefinitely blocked" which is a misleading euphemism.

Okay, well in summary for now, these RFC/Us are a pain in the butt, so thanks again for undertaking this GB_fan. Even if you do what I asked above, there's still probably an hundred reasons it'll go badly, but I say "damn the torpedos, and full speed ahead." I won't fault you for minutae in the text, just go ahead with it. Colton Cosmic (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC) PS: Any administrator ( @Writ Keeper: ?) that is willing to unblock me for purposes of direct participation in the RFC/U, for instance at its talkpage, I promise not to edit anywhere else (except here of course) and you can probably get away with that with a statement that you will monitor my edits.[reply]

Colton, I will look over what you suggest. I should have explained my reasoning for expanding the information. I expanded it because if the information wasn't there it would be suggested that we were trying to cover something up when others started commenting. I will look at how to better present the information so it can be there without specifying that the RFC is about the original block. It will be a few hours before I will be able to sit down and take a close look at your comments and make additional changes to the draft. GB fan 16:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Above at bullet #1 in my last remarks I inserted the link to to where Timotheus finally said he didn't know my previous account. I missed doing that yesterday. The reason it matters is because in the absence of communication from him for months, several people assumed he had "secret evidence," and this of course worked against me in my block appeals. Colton Cosmic (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we read each other, but to be clear I want the RFC/U to specifically answer the question of whether I socked prior to Timotheus' block of me. Not that you implied this, but my not including the block evasion stuff was in no way to cover anything up, it was because I saw it as extraneous to the point. It's you, GB, and I'm not faulting you on it, that expanded the RFC/U scope to include the block evasion. Since you did so I feel the best way to make the nature of the RFC clear, is to tell the participants they are being asked to consider two questions: 1) the original block, and 2) the block evasion. Otherwise it'll all get mushed together, and I don't want that. Colton Cosmic (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Colton I have further edited it based on your comments. I didn't change a couple of things.
"delightful contributions" is in quotes and it says that Timotheus referred to them so I think it is clear that those are his words.
I did not change it to Permanently blocked. If you are "permanently" there is no reason for us to do this because permanent means it will never be lifted.
If you have any other suggestions let me know. GB fan 20:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@GB fan: We do not agree on everything, but please go ahead as quickly as you are comfortable with. I noticed yours also is a WP:CLEANSTART account, a fact that you also saw fit to acknowledge on your page, but this RFC/U is about my edits, not anything about you. Colton Cosmic (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have created it at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colton Cosmic. GB fan 22:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Writ Keeper, Moe Epsilon, and EdChem: Would you mind going here [6] and certifying the basis for the dispute? It's on a timer and two people need to do so. All you're saying is you tried and failed to resolve the matter of my sockpuppeting charge. It technically makes you a "complainant" but I don't take it that way. It doesn't place really any further demands on you that I can tell. You can just look it over and then type "I certify the basis for this dispute" and then four tildes. Colton Cosmic (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Colton, I've been swamped lately, so I couldn't respond to your earlier ping, I hope this wasn't too stressful. I'm glad for you that GB fan has helped out, and I have added a certification. I respect that you have chosen this route forward and I hope it helps reach a resolution. EdChem (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you three that certified it, and again esp. to GB_fan that worked on it and submitted it. Colton Cosmic (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colton_Cosmic&oldid=594969584"